So the Hamas seems to have surprised Israel with a large scale terror attack today. Reports of thousands of rockets, 20+ dead, infiltrators and hostages, burned out Israeli military vehicles, reservists called to duty. I guess that warrants a thread.
:(
I predict Hamas will lose.
Most likely it will end up with the depopulation and obliteration of the Gaza Strip.
Hamas probably thinks they can engage in some ethnic cleansing and genocide after their Islamic brothers in Azerbaijan did the same..
What are they hoping to accomplish out of this?
They can't be so think as to believe Israel will throw their hands up and go ok we surrender you can have the 1947 borders back.
Traditional Islamic extremist shit of trying to bring on such a harsh Israeli response it brings the population onto their side/moves forward the apocalyptic war of civilizations?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 07, 2023, 05:26:01 AMHamas probably thinks they can engage in some ethnic cleansing and genocide after their Islamic brothers in Azerbaijan did the same..
:blink:
Azerbaijan are Israeli allies and even beyond that I can't see how this makes sense.
Quote from: Josquius on October 07, 2023, 05:50:32 AM:blink:
Azerbaijan are Israeli allies and even beyond that I can't see how this makes sense.
muslim country removes non muslim presence from place. Azerbaijan and Israel being allies is irrelevant to that.
What I don't get is this: Israel has one of the best intelligence gathering units in the world. Arguably second only to the USA. And they didn't see an attack of this magnitude? I believe they probably did, but let it happen, sort of like Coventry. i think they see these incursions as 1) Public sympathy for the state and 2) a reason to go ballistic (literally) on Hamas.
Quote from: Josephus on October 07, 2023, 07:25:15 AMWhat I don't get is this: Israel has one of the best intelligence gathering units in the world. Arguably second only to the USA. And they didn't see an attack of this magnitude? I believe they probably did, but let it happen, sort of like Coventry. i think they see these incursions as 1) Public sympathy for the state and 2) a reason to go ballistic (literally) on Hamas.
Yeah I would absolutely not put it past Netanyahu to make intelligence services ignore advance warnings, and I am pretty sure like in all other countries you can find far-right people in the various armed services ready to do what's necessary to get the casus belli they need to do what they want. Now anti-government protests and military personnel refusing to serve in protest will be out of question for quite a while.
I am also hoping this wasn't just plain incompetence because this will be a protracted conflict then.
Also I am wondering if this was just Hamas justifying their continued existence, or if they are doing some proxy thing for something Iran is preparing elsewhere. Early reports seems to show they are awash in Iranian equipment.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 07, 2023, 05:53:31 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 07, 2023, 05:50:32 AM:blink:
Azerbaijan are Israeli allies and even beyond that I can't see how this makes sense.
muslim country removes non muslim presence from place. Azerbaijan and Israel being allies is irrelevant to that.
Gaza is over 99% Muslim. I've heard nothing to suggest getting rid of non Muslims is particularly high on their agenda.
I was thinking about starting a thread, but one's has been created, I was going to entitle it 'Israeli-Palestinian- War 2023-'
Because I don't see this being confined to Gaza and I think Netanyahu and the Iranians could both want to widen the conflict for their own murderous reasons. And the 2023- onwards as I don't see this resolving in usual 'ceasefire' after a couple of weeks.
I will always stand with Israel, but I hate what is now coming for the Palestinians who aren't part of this insanity and who have just been struggling to get by--because they will bear the brunt of the pain.
While I am not quite sure Netanyahu would knowingly "allow this" to happen, and intelligence failures do happen--I can think of few developments more beneficial for him.
This is the end of public political opposition to his coalition. The end of drama over his authoritarian reforms.
It may even benefit them diplomatically, because all signs are Iran gave blessing to this. A major driver of the rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran has been a shared enmity towards Iran, and IMO this could actually help move more of the formal governments of the Arab world into closer relationships with Israel. Maybe not formal signed peace treaties, but I think this actually helps Israel diplomatically in the long run.
Footage out of Israel is very shocking. It's like a series of Bataclan attacks.
(https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AP23280378819787-1696678523.jpg)
QuoteAn Israeli soldier stands by the bodies of Israelis killed in the southern Israeli city of Sderot [Tsafrir Abayov/AP Photo]
I thought this image stands for much of the murder/killing that is going on.
Quote from: Josquius on October 07, 2023, 07:52:48 AMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 07, 2023, 05:53:31 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 07, 2023, 05:50:32 AM:blink:
Azerbaijan are Israeli allies and even beyond that I can't see how this makes sense.
muslim country removes non muslim presence from place. Azerbaijan and Israel being allies is irrelevant to that.
Gaza is over 99% Muslim. I've heard nothing to suggest getting rid of non Muslims is particularly high on their agenda.
it's all Hamas exists for.
Sigh. Are people EVER going to stop trying to kill the Jews? :(
Quote from: Josquius on October 07, 2023, 05:50:32 AMWhat are they hoping to accomplish out of this?
I thought this analysis was pretty persuasive (I have no idea) and of the two options for Israeli response I think it'll be number 2:
QuoteYair Wallach
@YairWallach
There are obvious parallels between the current attack and the 1973 war. In both cases, Arab leaders had reached out to Israeli leadership, and were rebuffed. Sadat to Golda's government, and Sinwar to Netanyahu (he even sent him a note in Hebrew)
In both cases, careful Arab military preparation was able to completely surprise an over-confident Israeli government and military.
But that's where the similarities end. 1973 was a war between militaries, and this time civilians will pay the highest price.
In 1973 there was a clear Egyptian calculus: a limited attack and achievement, leading to negotiations and full withdrawal from Sinai. This coincided with the shift from Soviet patronage to US one. Sadat took a risk, but the context was there to support it.
It is not clear to me what Hamas are hoping to achieve, Their position is extremely weak. The likely outcomes are either (1) Israeli re-occupation of Gaza (2) prolonged bombing campaign. A political deal? With this Israeli govt? extremely unlikely.
Hamas were willing to settle for a mini-state in Gaza and a long term truce with Israel. That deal was on offer, but Israel wasn't interested. Better to keep Gaza as an open air prison forever - what's the worst they could do? Occasional rocket attack?
So that proved wrong. And what now? Remember that for large parts of this government, escalation is good. It allows them a pretext to attack Palestinians elsewhere. Retaliation attacks in the west bank, inside Israel, removal of villages, mass arrests. They'll do what they can
I don't buy the commentary that it's all about the Saudi deal. Everyone knew a major escalation was about to happen - Israeli measures in the last years led that way. Full on annexation, land grub, ethnic cleansing, breaking the status-quo in Al-Aqsa/Temple Mount
It looks like Hamas preferred it to be *their escalation*, rather than start with a popular Intifada in the West Bank. And even if they suffer badly, they still position themselves as the real Palestinian leadership for the next stage.
8/
Quote from: Caliga on October 07, 2023, 09:26:55 AMSigh. Are people EVER going to stop trying to kill the Jews? :(
The Europeans have largely stopped. :)
Mainly because they already killed them all. :(
There are a lot of moving pieces here--but I doubt we go back to the status quo before--which was Gaza being an open air prison, internally administered by Hamas.
I very strongly doubt Israel wants a full re-occupation of Gaza, but I think there is no chance they go back to just letting Hamas run Gaza day to day. I'm not sure what the end state looks like, but I have a suspicion it involves Israeli military activity within the borders of Gaza becoming a standing matter, and not just a simple retaliatory move.
Absolutely awful. The brutality and brazenness of the attack has probably ended all remaining hope for a peaceful solution. This is the Israeli 9/11. Gaza will be razed.
The only question that remains is if Iran and Hezbollah are going to expand the conflict to a regional war.
Hezbollah so far has done nothing--it should be noted that a lot of saber rattling has been going on between Hezbollah and Israel of late, but not as much Hamas and Israel.
My understanding is the IDF was disproportionately positioned along its border with Hezbollah controlled territory--so them trying to jump in likely will result in very, very massive Hezbollah casualties. Hamas's initial attack seems to have gone well for them because of the light IDF presence in the region and total surprise, Hezbollah would have none of that going for them were they to jump in.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 07, 2023, 09:43:55 AMHezbollah so far has done nothing--it should be noted that a lot of saber rattling has been going on between Hezbollah and Israel of late, but not as much Hamas and Israel.
There are reports of first probing fire from Hezbollah positions.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 07, 2023, 09:45:26 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 07, 2023, 09:43:55 AMHezbollah so far has done nothing--it should be noted that a lot of saber rattling has been going on between Hezbollah and Israel of late, but not as much Hamas and Israel.
There are reports of first probing fire from Hezbollah positions.
Just checked and haven't seen this on any reputable sources.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 07, 2023, 09:00:24 AMThis is the end of public political opposition to his coalition. The end of drama over his authoritarian reforms.
it might indeed complete the transformation of Israel into just another middle-eastern state. Probably depends on how bad it gets.
From Bruno Gantz, head of the opposition in Israel:
Quote"I want to say clearly, in a way that resonates from Gaza, via Beirut, to Tehran: The entire people of Israel are united," he says. "All Israel's citizens stand behind the security forces, and the government has the backing to charge a heavy, painful and effective price in order that an event like this is not repeated."
"There is no coalition and opposition now," Gantz adds, "just a single fist that will pound the enemy."
I think Yom Kippur is a weak comparator, 9/11 seems better in terms of an unexpected attack that will have huge and unpredictable outcomes.
Though 9/11 succeeded due to it's extreme asymmetric nature and a good deal of luck for the planners and attackers.
Whereas it's magnitude of this Hamas attack, rather than the tactics used that make it so different; almost like they've gathered together all of their remaining resources and launched a massive banzai attack on Israel.
Hamas will be a spent force at the end of this, much like Al-Gaeda, probably replaced but other new forces?
Tonight or maybe over the next few days could see retaliatory settler programs in the West Bank, I can't see much that'll restrain them if they do. And if so, the PA police/armed forces will have to get of the fence and come to the aid of Palestinian civilians, which then means a wider fight with IDF.
Though that's just one scenario, it's likely/probably for this to spread into the West Bank anyway due to other causes.
The thing is this also makes the West Bank seem like the preferred model.
Roughly speaking we've seen two different approaches. In Gaza, Israel ultimately dismantled its settlements and force deported the Israel settlers back to Israel proper, and then unilaterally withdrew from Gaza.
While there have been minor clashes since that time, in some ways Gaza was viewed as somewhat "resolved" from the Israeli perspective. It didn't require active occupation, and while the Gazans lives were abject misery due to the blockade, it was not nearly as resource consuming as the permanent IDF occupation of the West Bank.
Hamas saber rattled and occasionally launched largely ineffective rocket strikes, but that was it.
This changes all the narrative.
Now, the West Bank is going to be seen as the preferred solution, right? The West Bank cannot be utilized for attacks like this because it is perpetually occupied by the IDF, and the local "government" as much as it exists in the West Bank collaborates with the IDF.
The more I think about it the more I think we're going back to a full IDF occupation of Gaza, because the rhetoric in Israel is going to demand an attack like this can never happen again. The only way you can say for sure is to keep the "war in Gaza" by...keeping the war in Gaza. (Of course that is no guarantee terrorist attacks stop in Israel, but it will mean they won't be large scale offensives that Hamas can prepare on its relatively safe side of the border.)
While I think this is a worsening of conditions of Israel, it is probably several orders of magnitude worsening of conditions of Palestinian civilians in Gaza when all is said and done.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 07, 2023, 09:23:15 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 07, 2023, 07:52:48 AMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 07, 2023, 05:53:31 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 07, 2023, 05:50:32 AM:blink:
Azerbaijan are Israeli allies and even beyond that I can't see how this makes sense.
muslim country removes non muslim presence from place. Azerbaijan and Israel being allies is irrelevant to that.
Gaza is over 99% Muslim. I've heard nothing to suggest getting rid of non Muslims is particularly high on their agenda.
it's all Hamas exists for.
Then why is this even happening considered they accomplished that long ago?
Seriously you have to think beyond this black and white view.
Quote from: Josquius on October 07, 2023, 10:18:02 AMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 07, 2023, 09:23:15 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 07, 2023, 07:52:48 AMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 07, 2023, 05:53:31 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 07, 2023, 05:50:32 AM:blink:
Azerbaijan are Israeli allies and even beyond that I can't see how this makes sense.
muslim country removes non muslim presence from place. Azerbaijan and Israel being allies is irrelevant to that.
Gaza is over 99% Muslim. I've heard nothing to suggest getting rid of non Muslims is particularly high on their agenda.
it's all Hamas exists for.
Then why is this even happening considered they accomplished that long ago?
Seriously you have to think beyond this black and white view.
for hamas every jew living in 'Palestine' is one too many, and there's still one. So nothing has been accomplished yet.
Be less naive about that ideology
Quote from: Josquius on October 07, 2023, 10:18:02 AMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 07, 2023, 09:23:15 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 07, 2023, 07:52:48 AMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 07, 2023, 05:53:31 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 07, 2023, 05:50:32 AM:blink:
Azerbaijan are Israeli allies and even beyond that I can't see how this makes sense.
muslim country removes non muslim presence from place. Azerbaijan and Israel being allies is irrelevant to that.
Gaza is over 99% Muslim. I've heard nothing to suggest getting rid of non Muslims is particularly high on their agenda.
it's all Hamas exists for.
Then why is this even happening considered they accomplished that long ago?
Seriously you have to think beyond this black and white view.
When did Hamas ever say they are content to turn just Gaza into an independent state? Aren't they still for eradicating the state of Israel? What's the confusion here?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 07, 2023, 10:21:06 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 07, 2023, 10:18:02 AMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 07, 2023, 09:23:15 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 07, 2023, 07:52:48 AMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 07, 2023, 05:53:31 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 07, 2023, 05:50:32 AM:blink:
Azerbaijan are Israeli allies and even beyond that I can't see how this makes sense.
muslim country removes non muslim presence from place. Azerbaijan and Israel being allies is irrelevant to that.
Gaza is over 99% Muslim. I've heard nothing to suggest getting rid of non Muslims is particularly high on their agenda.
it's all Hamas exists for.
Then why is this even happening considered they accomplished that long ago?
Seriously you have to think beyond this black and white view.
for hamas every jew living in 'Palestine' is one too many, and there's still one. So nothing has been accomplished yet.
Be less naive about that ideology
You're the naiive one here. You seem to think Hamas are comic book villains who seriously believe they can actually beat Israel in a war and chuck all the Jews into the sea, rather than just the rulers of a bantustan in the corner of the country.
There's absolutely no way they actually think they can get any ethnic cleansing of land outside gaza outside of this.
I also think, and this will take longer to be felt--this undermines growing "Israel skepticism" among the left in the West--most importantly in the United States.
While I won't say the U.S. body politic had been shifted that far off its long term pro-Israel axis, I definitely was seeing more people open to the idea that while both sides have done bad things, and Israel certainly (and absolutely does) have a right to exist, many Israeli actions have made long term conflict guaranteed and helped violence and desperation grow among the Palestinians.
This nuance was leading to at least some light American skepticism of Israel's right wing and its behavior vis-a-vis Palestine.
Now, I think that rolls back, a lot. Westerners and Americans in particular don't like videos of Israeli women being dragged away by "evil masked Muslims", or pictures of dead civilians being paraded around on the street by a Muslim terrorist group. This is going to hurt any sort of American centric effort at questioning the long term Israel position on Palestine. It also very likely makes the few American Muslim politicians vulnerable to serious political blowback. For example if Ilhan Omar steps even slightly wrong right now she is going to become a pariah politically. All of this will play into the strong lobby in America that promotes unequivocal support of Israel no matter its actions.
This is all easier to do because of Hamas brutality.
While I won't pretend to be an expert in insurgent warfare, I see no scenario where a traditional armed insurgency ever beats the IDF, ever clears Israel out of the West Bank etc. This is a situation where peaceful opposition IMO was starting to grow support for Palestine in the West. I think that reverses tremendously now.
Like if there can ever be any form of success for the Palestine "movement", I think it relies on framing Israel as an apartheid State and putting international pressure on it akin to what was put on South Africa. Brutality from Hamas makes that much, much less likely.
Netanyahu's fairly unreasonable actions in the last few years, while they hadn't grown a ton of support for casting Israel as an apartheid state, I think were at least growing skepticism of some of Israel's behavior. I think a lot of that just melts away--at least in the United States, which in terms of protecting Israel from being "South Africa'd" is the most important player, since it has a UN Security council veto etc.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 07, 2023, 09:48:04 AMQuote from: Hamilcar on October 07, 2023, 09:45:26 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 07, 2023, 09:43:55 AMHezbollah so far has done nothing--it should be noted that a lot of saber rattling has been going on between Hezbollah and Israel of late, but not as much Hamas and Israel.
There are reports of first probing fire from Hezbollah positions.
Just checked and haven't seen this on any reputable sources.
Check again.
Tyr, Corbyn is gone. You don't have to defend Hamas anymore.
Quote from: Josquius on October 07, 2023, 10:32:21 AMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 07, 2023, 10:21:06 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 07, 2023, 10:18:02 AMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 07, 2023, 09:23:15 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 07, 2023, 07:52:48 AMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 07, 2023, 05:53:31 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 07, 2023, 05:50:32 AM:blink:
Azerbaijan are Israeli allies and even beyond that I can't see how this makes sense.
muslim country removes non muslim presence from place. Azerbaijan and Israel being allies is irrelevant to that.
Gaza is over 99% Muslim. I've heard nothing to suggest getting rid of non Muslims is particularly high on their agenda.
it's all Hamas exists for.
Then why is this even happening considered they accomplished that long ago?
Seriously you have to think beyond this black and white view.
for hamas every jew living in 'Palestine' is one too many, and there's still one. So nothing has been accomplished yet.
Be less naive about that ideology
You're the naiive one here. You seem to think Hamas are comic book villains who seriously believe they can actually beat Israel in a war and chuck all the Jews into the sea, rather than just the rulers of a bantustan in the corner of the country.
There's absolutely no way they actually think they can get any ethnic cleansing of land outside gaza outside of this.
They're not comic book villains, they're actual villains who sincerely believe that it's their mission to eradicate the state of Israel and the jews living there. And after that: elsewhere.
That ideology is quite clear as to what the end goal for the world is.
Intent matters, regardless of wether or not the means are there.
So stop being an apologist for Evil.
Israel is calling up "hundreds of thousands". Are they going to go in full force to Gaza? Deter Hezbollah? Or do getting ready for incoming Hezbollah attacks?
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 07, 2023, 10:44:56 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 07, 2023, 09:48:04 AMQuote from: Hamilcar on October 07, 2023, 09:45:26 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 07, 2023, 09:43:55 AMHezbollah so far has done nothing--it should be noted that a lot of saber rattling has been going on between Hezbollah and Israel of late, but not as much Hamas and Israel.
There are reports of first probing fire from Hezbollah positions.
Just checked and haven't seen this on any reputable sources.
Check again.
I'm still monitoring Times of Israel's live feed, not sure who would be more reputable in this current fog of war—and they aren't reporting any organized Hezbollah involvement as yet.
I'm seeing articles that Hezbollah is praising Hamas and saying their attack is OSSUM but nothing indicating they've started their own attacks.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 07, 2023, 11:11:47 AMIsrael is calling up "hundreds of thousands". Are they going to go in full force to Gaza? Deter Hezbollah? Or do getting ready for incoming Hezbollah attacks?
Yes. This is not the beginning of an incursion, a round of attacks or etc. This is fully mobilized war. Yair Lapid (opposition), Bruno Gantz (opposition) and everyone in the Israeli Administration are talking about a "strategic" conflict and a lasting war. No one is even considering this ends with retaliatory strikes and IDF raids. This is the beginning of a lasting war.
Just awful. This is terrible for the victims, and for future victims.
There are lots of things I don't understand about what happened and what the future holds.
What did Hamas try to achieve with this attack? I mean, beyond the obvious - to strike a terrible blow against the state of Israel and hurt Israelis. What do they expect to happen next? What their understanding of the strategic landscape, and how do they think this action will change it? How do they hope their actions will affect that landscape?
Who are the decision makers who pushed this forward? Is this driven by a grouping within Hamas trying to hang on to internal power in face of rivals by escalating and creating a crisis? Are they acting on instructions from internal sponsors, and if so what is that sponsor trying to achieve? Is it literally an attempt to conduct national suicide in a broadbased fit of eschatological religious fervour? Did they look at the strategical landscape and conclude that they were losing and this is a rational but high risk attempt at rearranging the pieces on the board somehow (and it what way)? Do they think that Putin is about to kick off WWIII and this is their play in that chaos? What did hope to achieve?
Is there one Putin-like individual who holds the power to organize this, or is it consensus based?
And what did they tell the various foot-soldiers carrying out the attack? Obviously "this will really hurt them and they deserve it", but was there some sort of "and after we hit them, this will happen" and if so what is that thing?
And on the other side... obviously Israel is going to unite and enact vengeance on the perpetrators. I realize this is still early times for Israel - as a government and as a people they'll have to process the events and formulate a response - but what are they going to do? Where and how are they going to respond? What is going to provide enough of a sense of justice? Enough of a sense of security? What is the Israeli theory of victory going to be?
If any of you have thoughts on that - or links to credible analysts on this - please share.
Quote from: Jacob on October 07, 2023, 12:03:28 PMJust awful. This is terrible for the victims, and for future victims.
There are lots of things I don't understand about what happened and what the future holds.
What did Hamas try to achieve with this attack? I mean, beyond the obvious - to strike a terrible blow against the state of Israel and hurt Israelis. What do they expect to happen next? What their understanding of the strategic landscape, and how do they think this action will change it? How do they hope their actions will affect that landscape?
Who are the decision makers who pushed this forward? Is this driven by a grouping within Hamas trying to hang on to internal power in face of rivals by escalating and creating a crisis? Are they acting on instructions from internal sponsors, and if so what is that sponsor trying to achieve? Is it literally an attempt to conduct national suicide in a broadbased fit of eschatological religious fervour? Did they look at the strategical landscape and conclude that they were losing and this is a rational but high risk attempt at rearranging the pieces on the board somehow (and it what way)? Do they think that Putin is about to kick off WWIII and this is their play in that chaos? What did hope to achieve?
Is there one Putin-like individual who holds the power to organize this, or is it consensus based?
And what did they tell the various foot-soldiers carrying out the attack? Obviously "this will really hurt them and they deserve it", but was there some sort of "and after we hit them, this will happen" and if so what is that thing?
And on the other side... obviously Israel is going to unite and enact vengeance on the perpetrators. I realize this is still early times for Israel - as a government and as a people they'll have to process the events and formulate a response - but what are they going to do? Where and how are they going to respond? What is going to provide enough of a sense of justice? Enough of a sense of security? What is the Israeli theory of victory going to be?
If any of you have thoughts on that - or links to credible analysts on this - please share.
Jake, Fifteen question, too many?
:)
I think it's best wait for it to develop more before attempting to provide to many answers.
There's video of Palestinians hauling away Israeli women and children. The men were shouting a word that ISIS used for sex slaves.
The international clout of the Palestinian cause has declined greatly as former partron regimes in the Arab world have moved to normalize relations with Israel. This is a move out of desperation. Hamas knows the correlation of forces; they know that such a vicious attack will unite a divided Israeli polity to bring overwhelming force against them. Therefore that must be the point - to goad Israel into a brutal retaliation that will either shame Arab regimes into returning to the anti-Israeli fold or to inflame the "Street" against the Israel-friendly regimes.
It's a desperate throw of the dice and a dangerous game because there are some very extreme elements in the Israeli government that will be empowered now. Azerbaijan is getting away with ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabach (while using some Israeli kit BTW), Russia is getting away with it in parts of Ukraine; there will be voices in Israel pushing for more extreme and permanent measures.
I agree with a lot of that.
I also think part of this - and part of why this is such a strategic shock to Israel - is that Israel had largely nullified the threat from Hamas. Gaza was contained, they could fire a few rockets if they wanted and even in that context Iron Dome broadly protected them. Plus from what I understand there was confidence that Israel's intelligence was very good on what Hamas would do. I think, and I could be wrong on this, that that secure context is part of why Israeli politics has gone as it has - secure societies can afford to have massive confrontations over core constitutional issues, they can afford to send the IDF to mainly guard existing and growing settlements, they can pander more and more to ultra-Orthodox parties with broad religious draft exemptions etc.
I could be wrong but I wonder if the response may be key to the future of Israeli politics. If he goes down the national unity route and security (and service) becomes a key issue again in a way it hasn't in recent years then that may well sideline the more extreme elements in Netanyahu's coalition. If not then you have very extreme parts of that coalition who even before today advocated what amounts to ethnic cleansing, and groups who represent those with draft exemptions in the IDF and I think it might head in quite a compustible (and bad) way.
From a Hamas pov I think that "nullification" created a challenge. If they intended to continue they needed an ability to attack Israel that they couldn't just swat away. There have been the outrages against civilians but I almost wonder if as shocking to the Israeli context will be the border posts overrun, IDF equipment stolen - all in core, 1948 Israeli territory (not Golan, Sinai, West Bank settlements etc) from a threat they thought they'd basically managed. I think that's why Hezbollah weren't aware is precisely because Hamas needed surprise. It's almost existential - if your basis for existing is fighting Israel and Israel has basically penned you in and developed a shield that blocks attacks, then you either adapt or basically stop existing/cede your role. Perhaps part of it is also in a way an "propaganada of the deed" thing: no matter how secure Israel feels, it isn't - Hamas (and others) will keep working on new ways to attack. It is probably also something that's going to be very difficult to repeat - though I imagine they're not unprepared in Gaza for retaliation which they will expect to be more than just a few airstrikes back.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2023, 12:27:13 PMThere's video of Palestinians hauling away Israeli women and children. The men were shouting a word that ISIS used for sex slaves.
Yeah this is a bona fide invasion instead of a raid. And the perpetrators are flooding social media with their Commanche/Yamnaya behavior.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F709XGhXMAAMzpW?format=jpg&name=900x900)
If I were the Israelis I'd basically bulldoze Gaza City and all it's inhabitants into the Mediterranean.
Corbyn of course declares on the side of Hamas:
QuoteThe Palestinian people deserve better than this.
We will not bring about peace by ignoring the reality of Israeli occupation, documented by Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, the UN, B'Tselem and many more.
End apartheid. Defend human rights. Free Palestine.
What a tool. I'd say it was worth Johnson and his minions' rampage to avoid Corbyn as PM.
Biden warning "against any other party hostile to Israel seeking advantage in this situation" is a pretty clear threat for Iran to back off.
QuoteThey're not comic book villains, they're actual villains who sincerely believe that it's their mission to eradicate the state of Israel and the jews living there. And after that: elsewhere.
That ideology is quite clear as to what the end goal for the world is.
Intent matters, regardless of wether or not the means are there.
So stop being an apologist for Evil.
:lmfao:
OK. Sure. Let's say you're right and they really are as stupid as you think they are.
How then did they stay in power this long? How did they get there in the first place?
This kind of dissonance in the ignorant far right view of the world is so amazing. Your enemies are simultaneously impure, stupid and weak... Yet a massive massive threat that need to be tackled far more strongly than any of the corrupt weaklings of the world today are able to.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2023, 10:47:38 AMTyr, Corbyn is gone. You don't have to defend Hamas anymore.
Raz, Trump is gone. You don't need to pretend hostile forces are simpletons anymore.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 07, 2023, 01:16:35 PMI agree with a lot of that.
I also think part of this - and part of why this is such a strategic shock to Israel - is that Israel had largely nullified the threat from Hamas. Gaza was contained, they could fire a few rockets if they wanted and even in that context Iron Dome broadly protected them. Plus from what I understand there was confidence that Israel's intelligence was very good on what Hamas would do. I think, and I could be wrong on this, that that secure context is part of why Israeli politics has gone as it has - secure societies can afford to have massive confrontations over core constitutional issues, they can afford to send the IDF to mainly guard existing and growing settlements, they can pander more and more to ultra-Orthodox parties with broad religious draft exemptions etc.
I could be wrong but I wonder if the response may be key to the future of Israeli politics. If he goes down the national unity route and security (and service) becomes a key issue again in a way it hasn't in recent years then that may well sideline the more extreme elements in Netanyahu's coalition. If not then you have very extreme parts of that coalition who even before today advocated what amounts to ethnic cleansing, and groups who represent those with draft exemptions in the IDF and I think it might head in quite a compustible (and bad) way.
From a Hamas pov I think that "nullification" created a challenge. If they intended to continue they needed an ability to attack Israel that they couldn't just swat away. There have been the outrages against civilians but I almost wonder if as shocking to the Israeli context will be the border posts overrun, IDF equipment stolen - all in core, 1948 Israeli territory (not Golan, Sinai, West Bank settlements etc) from a threat they thought they'd basically managed. I think that's why Hezbollah weren't aware is precisely because Hamas needed surprise. It's almost existential - if your basis for existing is fighting Israel and Israel has basically penned you in and developed a shield that blocks attacks, then you either adapt or basically stop existing/cede your role. Perhaps part of it is also in a way an "action of the deed" thing: no matter how secure Israel feels, it isn't - Hamas (and others) will keep working on new ways to attack. It is probably also something that's going to be very difficult to repeat - though I imagine they're not unprepared in Gaza for retaliation which they will expect to be more than just a few airstrikes back.
Sounds sensible. The other post on the coming reckoning in the west bank too...
So hamas know gaza is fucked and they're pulling this one to try and make themselves the power in the west bank when shit goes down there(hopefully now rather than when Israel decides)
National Unity Government is being formed:
QuotePrime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proposes that opposition parties Yesh Atid and National Unity enter an emergency government following Hamas's devastating surprise attack Saturday morning.
Netanyahu makes the offer during a meeting with Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid and National Unity party leader Benny Gantz held earlier today, saying such a government would be the same in format as the Levi Eshkol government then-opposition leader Menachem Begin joined before the Six Day War in 1967.
Gantz says he is considering entering such a government for the duration of the war but insists that government would "deal with security challenges alone" and in a manner that would allow "substantive partnership and influence over decision-making in relevant forums" for his party.
I agree w/JR's view--this is desperation by Hamas.
What the final straw was, I don't know. I think any drama over the Al Aqsa Mosque is probably not the real motivation here, it is much more likely to be Israel's improving normalization of relations with Arab states that have historically been Palestinian patrons.
What Hamas expects, I can't say. The fact that this was born of desperation of what they understood to be an eroding position, means they were probably gambling heavily. Most likely their goal is far afield of what is likely to happen--which I think is often going to be the case when a group like Hamas finally decides conditions are such it has to take a big gamble.
My hunch is Hamas simply underestimates the degree to which Arab states like KSA, UAE...are just mostly "done" with Palestine. They don't really care. Those states aren't democratic, so even if they have people in the "street" who are foaming at the mouth pro-Palestine, the plutocrats who run those States have long been showing they want normalized relations with Israel. They view a friendly Israel as an important economic ally, and important in helping balance power in the region vis-a-vis forces like Iran.
Saudi Arabia in particular seems to be trying to cool "tensions" with everyone around it, and I think of all the pieces on the chess board the brutal reality is KSA cares less about Palestine than any of the other pieces. They are the ultimate "worthless pawn" in the minds of the Gulf Plutocrats.
Palestine's old protectors--Jordan and Egypt; well Egypt long ago made its peace and is firmly enmeshed in a system of receiving Western military aid. Jordan has moved very close to the United States and the West in the last 30 years, and has increasingly normalized relations with Israel. I just don't see Jordan going back the other way.
I think Hamas probably has people who realize there is no real hope for their cause in its present form, but it probably has a lot of people who think it is better to try SOMETHING, even if the odds of success are in single digit percents, than to just "surrender" to being outmaneuvered by Israel.
I go back to believing any viable Palestinian opposition has to be predicated on some form of peaceful resistance. This isn't America in Afghanistan, where you can weary out the public and we'll pull our troops home. This is Israel's home. They are never going anywhere, and the more you make them afraid the harder they are going to hit--and I worry to think how far that response may go with the current Israeli government. I worry if things like this push the government even further to the right where it will go.
I think Israel is still too far in the orbit of the West and the United States to just start genociding with abandon like the Azeri are in Nagorno-Karabakh (although it should be noted Azerbaijan has historically received significant U.S. military aid since the early 2000s--but America has long seemed to take a position of strategic indifference to the specifics of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, whilst trying to court both sides.)
But where does Israel go from here? I repeat it won't be back to the status quo.
I have seen some Hamas people saying on TV they expect to exchange all the hostages for Palestinian prisoners. I think that will hopefully happen, but it also suggests Hamas may be very deluded and think that this will "simmer down" shortly and they'll go back to the status quo ante, Hamas will walk away with pride + prestige and freed hostages.
At the very least I suspect few meaningful high rises are going to remain in Gaza city after this. Israel has already felled 4 and appears inclined to continue. I suspect all or nearly all work permits for Gazans are done--the entire border with Gaza will basically be shutdown. None of the Gazans who had been eking out a living working during the day in Israel will be allowed to continue to do so. How much worse things get than that I don't know, but I think that is baseline, and Israel has no intentions of stopping there.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 07, 2023, 01:49:19 PMNational Unity Government is being formed:
I think that's good and agree with Gantz's reservation of what that means.
But the more I read about what happened at different points the more I think that after a period of national unity and resolve - there are going to be very, very serious questions about how this happened for Netanyahu's government. For example this sounds like there's basically two kibbutzes that may basically be in hostage situations and again this is in core 1948 Israeli territory and from Gaza which is not some unexpected, novel front:
Quote'Severe hostage situation' in two places in southern Israel
Israeli army spokesman Richard Hecht has given reporters an update on the situation in southern Israel.
Fighting is still going on at 22 separate locations on Israeli territory after Hamas militants attacked early on Saturday.
He says a "severe hostage situation" is going on at Kibbutz Be'eri and Ofakim. Earlier, we reported that Hamas militants have taken both Israeli soldiers and civilians hostage, in an unprecedented situation.
Israeli media report that Hamas militants are still fighting the army at the police station in Sderot. However, a number of other towns and communities have been secured, reports say.
Netanyahu in his address told Gaza residents to "flee" because "We will turn all Hamas hiding places into Rubble."
As I understand it, that may refer to the high-rises which are known Hamas C&C centers. Supposedly the IDF has issued repeated warnings to evacuate the high rises (which unfortunately also contain many civilian apartments) before leveling them, but undoubtedly we will see lots of Gazan civilians killed as well.
In terms of the security failure, my early reading is the border with Gaza wasn't that hardened--maybe the wrong term, more it was "less hardened" than in years past, and obviously they allowed a good number of Gazans to cross over on work permits regularly. The Israelis had shifted to more of an "intelligence focused" security around Gaza (they previously had a more robust military presence, if I understand correctly.) Supposedly Israeli intelligence was so deeply enmeshed inside of Gaza and in Hamas, they felt like they well knew Hamas moves. They had successfully predicted and stopped, or prepared for, a number of other Hamas moves in the recent past.
The fact that this appears to have been planned and executed with Israel's security network that it invested so much faith in apparently knowing nothing, means Hamas may have had a better read on who was compromised than Israel thought, probably fed them disinformation or kept compromised people out of the discussion. The fact their organization was able to stage and launch this and no one in the Israeli intelligence system knew shows that the "intelligence network" concept for keeping the Gazan border safe will likely be considered a strategic failure by Israel.
That is why I am guessing whatever happens, Gazan work permits are a thing of the past, when the active fighting stops (and FWIW, I don't have any realistic hope that is anytime this week or this month) I suspect Israel will basically only allow humanitarian assistance to go in, on a very limited basis, and almost no Gazans out for any reason (which again--despite its reputation as being an infamous "open air prison", previously lots of Gazans on work permits were allowed to cross over every day.)
You will probably see increased structural militarization of the border too, which it is a militarized border already, but obviously you can build more walls, trenches, etc.
Israeli Defense Minister said they'll "change reality on the ground in Gaza for the next 50 years".
IDF tanks being carried toward Gaza: https://twitter.com/i/status/1710746799932121404
It looks like Hamas is willing to sacrifice Gaza and perhaps themselves in order to prevent Saudi Arabia from regularizing its relationship with Israel. And as a side effect, I suppose, create chaos.
On security failure there's the intelligence side and I think there was an element of hubris around Iron Dome plus their intelligence.
But the thing I'm seeing Israelis point to is that there was only a skeleton force in Southern Israel and around Gaza because most of the IDF was deployed to the West Bank. From what I've seen that's being tied very much to Netanyahu and in particular his extreme parts of his coalition. I've also seen Israelis absolutely raging about videos of ultra-Orthodox dancing in the streets today as part of the holidays despite what's happened and the state of emergency - particularly as they also have exemptions from the national call up/mobilisation.
Quote from: Josquius on October 07, 2023, 05:50:32 AMTraditional Islamic extremist shit of trying to bring on such a harsh Israeli response it brings the population onto their side/moves forward the apocalyptic war of civilizations?
Something like that. It's the only play they have left that I can see.
Israel is slowly chipping away at Palestinian territory and will keep doing it anyway, no matter what. They can not win by attacking like that, they can only bring a few more Israelis down with them.
Sucks for all the innocent people who are going to die.
I guess Hamas realized their position was unsustainable. I never really understood what Hamas' endgame plan was anyway. The only hope for the Palestinians was to somehow force or negotiate concessions from Israel but their tactics make either of those possibilities impossible.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 07, 2023, 02:31:55 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 07, 2023, 01:49:19 PMNational Unity Government is being formed:
I think that's good and agree with Gantz's reservation of what that means.
But the more I read about what happened at different points the more I think that after a period of national unity and resolve - there are going to be very, very serious questions about how this happened for Netanyahu's government
Yeah.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2023, 03:17:54 PMIt looks like Hamas is willing to sacrifice Gaza and perhaps themselves in order to prevent Saudi Arabia from regularizing its relationship with Israel. And as a side effect, I suppose, create chaos.
FWIW I was always
very skeptical the Biden-admin mediated "mega deal" was ever going to happen. The only way KSA can sign on to a big public deal like that was if Israel made concessions on Palestine. Even before this, with Netanyahu's current far right coalition...I just don't think that was in the cards. While I had mixed reports of "progress being made" here and there, I also regularly heard mixed reports that Netanyahu's coalition partners viciously opposed any deal with concessions and would have torpedoed any attempted deal along those lines.
I think what was always more likely to happen is Israel and Saudi Arabia normalize more "quietly", likely with more back channel cooperation at first, maybe eventually small announcements involving some economic deals and things like that. The only party I think who massively benefits from a big public one off deal was the American administration, as a feather in Biden's cap.
A big public deal without Israeli concessions would harm KSA's monarchy too much in its standing with its own hardline population and other Arab groups, and any sort of concessions would have endangered Netanyahu's ability to hold his coalition together.
Whilst I think the narrative will quickly become that these attacks torpedoed the deal,
this Israeli administration, I think was very unlikely to ever finalize a real deal along the lines Biden wanted (which would have included a ratcheting down of pressure on Palestine and numerous meaningful concessions to the Palestinians.)
The way Israeli hardliners see it is they have gotten along just fine without normalized relations with KSA for 75 odd years, why give up things that really matter to them to change something that has been a de facto norm their entire lives?
IIRC the Israelis invaded Lebanon in 1982 in retaliation for the killing of Israeli ambassador to the UK; worth remembering for an indication of the level of retribution they'll inflict on Hamas and Palestinians.
Also didn't the Israeli invasion and subsequent siege of Beirut kill something like 20,000 in Lebanon? :unsure:
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 07, 2023, 02:33:51 PMNetanyahu in his address told Gaza residents to "flee" because "We will turn all Hamas hiding places into Rubble."
to where?
Quote from: Josquius on October 07, 2023, 01:37:16 PMQuoteThey're not comic book villains, they're actual villains who sincerely believe that it's their mission to eradicate the state of Israel and the jews living there. And after that: elsewhere.
That ideology is quite clear as to what the end goal for the world is.
Intent matters, regardless of wether or not the means are there.
So stop being an apologist for Evil.
:lmfao:
OK. Sure. Let's say you're right and they really are as stupid as you think they are.
How then did they stay in power this long? How did they get there in the first place?
This kind of dissonance in the ignorant far right view of the world is so amazing. Your enemies are simultaneously impure, stupid and weak... Yet a massive massive threat that need to be tackled far more strongly than any of the corrupt weaklings of the world today are able to.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2023, 10:47:38 AMTyr, Corbyn is gone. You don't have to defend Hamas anymore.
Raz, Trump is gone. You don't need to pretend hostile forces are simpletons anymore.
Hamas got in power because Palestinians hate Jews. Killing Jews is very popular with Palestinians and Hamas came to power in an election. You don't need to come up with some sort of grand strategy on why Hamas is doing this. Killing Jews is their default. They just went big this time.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 07, 2023, 03:25:02 PMOn security failure there's the intelligence side and I think there was an element of hubris around Iron Dome plus their intelligence.
But the thing I'm seeing Israelis point to is that there was only a skeleton force in Southern Israel and around Gaza because most of the IDF was deployed to the West Bank. From what I've seen that's being tied very much to Netanyahu and in particular his extreme parts of his coalition. I've also seen Israelis absolutely raging about videos of ultra-Orthodox dancing in the streets today as part of the holidays despite what's happened and the state of emergency - particularly as they also have exemptions from the national call up/mobilisation.
Let's hope so. Hamas are disgusting but there's a significant portion of Israelis who are no better.
The taking of hostages is unusual for Hamas, if that's what they are doing. I guess human shields? Would IDF dare bomb targets with Israelis in them?
I think at least 50 hostages confirmed so far which will definitely complicate things for the IDF.
Quote from: Josephus on October 07, 2023, 04:16:05 PMQuote from: Hamilcar on October 07, 2023, 02:33:51 PMNetanyahu in his address told Gaza residents to "flee" because "We will turn all Hamas hiding places into Rubble."
to where?
I wondered the same—I guess into the sea?
Quote from: Josephus on October 07, 2023, 05:23:48 PMThe taking of hostages is unusual for Hamas, if that's what they are doing. I guess human shields? Would IDF dare bomb targets with Israelis in them?
From this list there's only one confirmed swap, but I guess that might be largely down to lack of opportunities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_prisoner_exchanges (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_prisoner_exchanges)
QuoteOn October 18, 2011, captured IDF tank gunner Gilad Shalit, captured by the Palestinian militant organization Hamas in 2006, was released in exchange for 1027 Palestinian prisoners held in Israel.
Quote from: PJL on October 07, 2023, 05:04:41 AMMost likely it will end up with the depopulation and obliteration of the Gaza Strip.
I was concerned I might have gone over the top on my reply but given the lack of comments on this and the way events are unfolding, it might not be too far off the mark.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 07, 2023, 05:38:52 PMQuote from: Josephus on October 07, 2023, 04:16:05 PMQuote from: Hamilcar on October 07, 2023, 02:33:51 PMNetanyahu in his address told Gaza residents to "flee" because "We will turn all Hamas hiding places into Rubble."
to where?
I wondered the same—I guess into the sea?
I mean, what's he supposed to say... "Gaza residents, prepare to die?"
Upthread is was suggested it applies to civilians in highrise buildings which are also being used by Hamas as C&C centres.
Quote from: Caliga on October 07, 2023, 07:03:55 PMI mean, what's he supposed to say... "Gaza residents, prepare to die?"
That would be in character.
Quote from: Josephus on October 07, 2023, 04:16:05 PMQuote from: Hamilcar on October 07, 2023, 02:33:51 PMNetanyahu in his address told Gaza residents to "flee" because "We will turn all Hamas hiding places into Rubble."
to where?
Presumably to any building that doesn't also house Hamas.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/c5tWYj_Y60w
Not this building.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2023, 04:17:54 PMHamas got in power because Palestinians hate Jews. Killing Jews is very popular with Palestinians and Hamas came to power in an election. You don't need to come up with some sort of grand strategy on why Hamas is doing this. Killing Jews is their default. They just went big this time.
And in killing a few hundred Jews today they lose their ability to keep killing Jews ever again in the future.
No. I find it hard to believe that a majority of the Palestinian population value just one more dead Jew over their own fundamental survival.
Quote from: Josquius on October 07, 2023, 11:51:30 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2023, 04:17:54 PMHamas got in power because Palestinians hate Jews. Killing Jews is very popular with Palestinians and Hamas came to power in an election. You don't need to come up with some sort of grand strategy on why Hamas is doing this. Killing Jews is their default. They just went big this time.
And in killing a few hundred Jews today they lose their ability to keep killing Jews ever again in the future.
No. I find it hard to believe that a majority of the Palestinian population value just one more dead Jew over their own fundamental survival.
They tie bombs around their chests and set them off in crowded places full of Jews.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2023, 12:01:15 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 07, 2023, 11:51:30 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2023, 04:17:54 PMHamas got in power because Palestinians hate Jews. Killing Jews is very popular with Palestinians and Hamas came to power in an election. You don't need to come up with some sort of grand strategy on why Hamas is doing this. Killing Jews is their default. They just went big this time.
And in killing a few hundred Jews today they lose their ability to keep killing Jews ever again in the future.
No. I find it hard to believe that a majority of the Palestinian population value just one more dead Jew over their own fundamental survival.
They tie bombs around their chests and set them off in crowded places full of Jews.
The majority of the Palestinian population do?
The whole situation is an absolute tragedy. My personal position is more or less in agreement with Hasan Piker's, though. :(
Untitled.png
I can think of two parties committing violence and both have the ability to stop committing violence any time they wish.
Yeah, all the Palestinians need to do to stop war is stop demanding an ethnic cleansing and then go to the bargaining table. All the Israelis need to do is mass suicide.
Quote from: Threviel on October 08, 2023, 03:08:41 AMYeah, all the Palestinians need to do to stop war is stop demanding an ethnic cleansing and then go to the bargaining table. All the Israelis need to do is mass suicide.
OK. That's already done. So... How about that peace settlement and Israeli withdrawal then?
It's pretty obvious why the violent approach sells so well given Israels failure with the moderates.
Quote from: Josquius on October 08, 2023, 03:15:22 AMOK. That's already done. So... How about that peace settlement and Israeli withdrawal then?
It's been a long time since this was a topic and I might have missed something big, but doesn't the Hamas charter still call for the elimination of Israel?
Reports now that Hezbollah is hitting northern Israel with rockets now.
Netanyahu's full statement from Twitter:
QuoteThis morning, on Shabbat and a holiday, Hamas invaded Israeli territory and murdered innocent citizens including children and the elderly. Hamas has started a brutal and evil war.
We will be victorious in this war despite an unbearable price. This is a very difficult day for all of us.
Hamas wants to murder us all. This is an enemy that murders children and mothers in their homes, in their beds, an enemy that abducts the elderly, children and young women, that slaughters and massacres our citizens, including children, who simply went out to enjoy the holiday.
What happened today is unprecedented in Israel – and I will see to it that it does not happen again. The entire government is behind this decision.
The IDF will immediately use all its strength to destroy Hamas's capabilities. We will destroy them and we will forcefully avenge this dark day that they have forced on the State of Israel and its citizens. As Bialik wrote: 'Revenge for the blood of a little child has yet been devised by Satan'.
All of the places which Hamas is deployed, hiding and operating in, that wicked city, we will turn them into rubble.
I say to the residents of Gaza: Leave now because we will operate forcefully everywhere.
At this hour, the IDF is clearing the terrorists out of the last communities. They are going community by community, house by house, and are restoring our control.
I embrace and send heartfelt condolences to the bereaved families whose loved ones were murdered today in cold blood and endless brutality.
We are all praying for the well-being of the wounded and all those who are being held hostage. I say to Hamas: You are responsible for their well-being. Israel will settle accounts with anyone who harms one hair on their heads.
I appeal to the residents of the south: We all stand alongside you. We are all proud of your heroism and your fighting.
To our beloved IDF soldiers, police officers and security forces personnel, remember that you are the continuation of the heroes of the Jewish people, of Joshua, Judah Maccabee and the heroes of 1948 and of all of Israel's wars. You are now fighting for the home and future of us all. We are all with you. We all love you. We all salute you.
To the medical and rescue teams, and the many volunteers who came out in force today in a long list of places, the people of Israel salute you. With your spirit, we will overcome our enemies.
Today, I spoke with US President Biden and with other world leaders in order to ensure freedom of action for Israel in the continuation of the campaign. I thank President Biden for his strong and clear words. I thank the President of France, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and many other leaders for their unreserved support for Israel.
I now appeal to all citizens of Israel:
We stand together in this campaign.
This war will take time. It will be difficult. Challenging days are ahead of us. However, I can promise one thing: With the help of G-d, the forces that we all have in common and our faith in the Eternal One of Israel, we will win.
This is really ominous.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2023, 03:19:23 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 08, 2023, 03:15:22 AMOK. That's already done. So... How about that peace settlement and Israeli withdrawal then?
It's been a long time since this was a topic and I might have missed something big, but doesn't the Hamas charter still call for the elimination of Israel?
Fatah are the legitimate (well. Not really. But more than Hamas) and majority Palestinian government. They gave up violence and turned to negotiation a while ago. For seemingly no benefit.
Quote from: Josquius on October 08, 2023, 04:07:43 AMFatah are the legitimate (well. Not really. But more than Hamas) and majority Palestinian government. They gave up violence and turned to negotiation a while ago. For seemingly no benefit.
It would be nice if you put in all the qualifiers before I challenged you on it. Like if you had qualified your last sentence to include a quasi government and limited autonomy.
That aside, you do touch on my preferred fix: the three state solution. Independent West Bank, Israel, and open air Hamas prison.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2023, 04:36:30 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 08, 2023, 04:07:43 AMFatah are the legitimate (well. Not really. But more than Hamas) and majority Palestinian government. They gave up violence and turned to negotiation a while ago. For seemingly no benefit.
It would be nice if you put in all the qualifiers before I challenged you on it. Like if you had qualified your last sentence to include a quasi government and limited autonomy.
That aside, you do touch on my preferred fix: the three state solution. Independent West Bank, Israel, and open air Hamas prison.
Threvial said Palestinians.
Fatah are the closest thing to the official Palestinian view. Certainly more so than Hamas.
That would be a workable stopgap. Though lots of innocent people in Gaza. Also has the vital problem of Israel and it's settlers.
Quote from: Josquius on October 08, 2023, 04:41:04 AMThrevial said Palestinians.
Then you tried to correct his overgeneralization, then I corrected your overgeneralization.
QuoteThat would be a workable stopgap. Though lots of innocent people in Gaza. Also has the vital problem of Israel and it's settlers.
There were lots of innocent people in Nazi Germany.
Yes to the settler problem.
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on October 08, 2023, 01:48:33 AMThe whole situation is an absolute tragedy. My personal position is more or less in agreement with Hasan Piker's, though. :(
Untitled.png
There were civilians gunned down where they stood, many of them captured. Hard for me to stomach "well yeah, but" stance on this one, no matter how I have been dismayed to see Israel going down the same gutters every other country in then region long entered.
What do you see as the course of action for Israel to take to end this conflict (sine assume that is the single side you say holds all respnisibilty for whatever happens)? Keeping in mind that the official stated goal of Hamas is the destruction of the state of Israel.
Quote from: Threviel on October 08, 2023, 03:08:41 AMYeah, all the Palestinians need to do to stop war is stop demanding an ethnic cleansing and then go to the bargaining table. All the Israelis need to do is mass suicide.
Some posters make this mistake characterizing the acts of Hamas as being the acts of all Palestinians.
Fact is that the majority of Palestinians have been trying for decades to establish some form of coexistence with the state of Israel. There have also been many Israelis attempting to do the same thing. A Prime Minister of Israel was assassinated for trying to do that very thing. Assassinated by the same right wing extremists that now support the present Israeli Prime Minister.
Quote from: Tamas on October 08, 2023, 06:51:50 AMQuote from: Sophie Scholl on October 08, 2023, 01:48:33 AMThe whole situation is an absolute tragedy. My personal position is more or less in agreement with Hasan Piker's, though. :(
Untitled.png
There were civilians gunned down where they stood, many of them captured. Hard for me to stomach "well yeah, but" stance on this one, no matter how I have been dismayed to see Israel going down the same gutters every other country in then region long entered.
What do you see as the course of action for Israel to take to end this conflict (sine assume that is the single side you say holds all respnisibilty for whatever happens)? Keeping in mind that the official stated goal of Hamas is the destruction of the state of Israel.
I once thought that there was some possibility of a peaceful end to this conflict. I have no hope of that any longer. The Israeli government has become too extreme. And groups like Hamas have become too powerful.
Patriots are intercepting something over Northern Israel....
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 08, 2023, 07:10:36 AMQuote from: Threviel on October 08, 2023, 03:08:41 AMYeah, all the Palestinians need to do to stop war is stop demanding an ethnic cleansing and then go to the bargaining table. All the Israelis need to do is mass suicide.
Some posters make this mistake characterizing the acts of Hamas as being the acts of all Palestinians.
Fact is that the majority of Palestinians have been trying for decades to establish some form of coexistence with the state of Israel. There have also been many Israelis attempting to do the same thing. A Prime Minister of Israel was assassinated for trying to do that very thing. Assassinated by the same right wing extremists that now support the present Israeli Prime Minister.
Of course, but then this becomes the usual question of how much a populace is responsible for the actions of the government they tolerate above themselves. I do not think Palestinians are more collectively responsible for Hamas than Israelis are for their violent settlers etc, but also I can't really expect Israel to take risks byimiting their response against Hamas in order to spare the population sustaining Hamas.
The thing is Hamas basically won one election many years ago and they've never held another one. Now, it is likely they probably would win reelection, but just like the PLA which also hasn't held elections in ages the "governments" of Palestine have essentially no democratic legitimacy.
Yeah, sorry for generalising and using Palestinians instead of Hamas and Israelis instead of non-Muslims.
Nevertheless there cannot be peace between Israel and Hamas as long as Hamas primary and non-negotiable purpose is the extermination of all jews and the state of Isreal. It doesn't matter one iota what Israel does, as long as it exists there can be no peace.
Hamas is a fascist organisation ruthlessly ruling Gaza, killing any opposition and doing their best to kill any Israeli/Jew that they can get their hands on. They parade the naked corpses of their enemies around the streets to public celebration and it seems like isis-style mass rapes are about to happen. A solid majority of all Palestinians support Hamas over Fatah, I couldn't find numbers for Gaza, but I assume that they have overwhelming public support from there.
I just cannot understand why leftists from western states support Hamas, or even the Palestinians in general, since the Palestinians seem to very much agree with Hamas.
Quote from: Threviel on October 08, 2023, 03:08:41 AMYeah, all the Palestinians need to do to stop war is stop demanding an ethnic cleansing and then go to the bargaining table. All the Israelis need to do is mass suicide.
I don't want to turn this into a general Israel-Palestine thread.
But isn't the problem with that point what's happening in the West Bank (or also the Israeli state's response to peaceful marches in Gaza)? Plus the nature of the current Israeli coalition. It doesn't feel like that approach has worked out for Palestinians in the West Bank. Maybe at one point it would have been enough but there's a real concerning extremism in Israeli politics and government now - as I said earlier I would argue that is a product of a sense of security. It's perhaps counter-intuitive but I think when there were significant threats to Israel, Israeli politics was hard but realist and placed real value on experience particularly from the security services and IDF. I think as those threats have diminished you've had the rise of an extreme that isn't realist or particularly close to the security service or IDF (a number of them have in the past been arrested for planning violence within Israel) - and is comfortable dividing society over, say, Netanyahu's changes to the courts.
QuoteOf course, but then this becomes the usual question of how much a populace is responsible for the actions of the government they tolerate above themselves. I do not think Palestinians are more collectively responsible for Hamas than Israelis are for their violent settlers etc, but also I can't really expect Israel to take risks byimiting their response against Hamas in order to spare the population sustaining Hamas.
The current Israeli coalition includes violent settlers. The Finance Minister (also with a role in the MOD) who has described himself as a "homophobe and a fascist", was arrested for planning violence in Israel over Sharon forcing settlements out of Gaza. He's said there's no such thing as a Palestinian people and that Ben Gurion didn't finish the job. He's also said settler violence isn't terrorism because terrorism is definitionally carried out by enemies against Israel and called for Palestinian villages to be "razed".
There are already reports that he apparently used the cabinet meeting to say that Israel needed to get "nasty" and mustn't let the presence or survival of hostages influence the response.
This is not the Israel of 25 years ago. It's why I think Gantz is right to say the condition of a national unity government is that Netanyahu leaves his far-right coalition parties, so it isn't just legitimising them, and that Yesh Atid etc have a real say. And why I think there's a choice for Netanyahu of perhaps returning more to the politics of the past - or pushing into this war and using this moment of national unity to advance what I think are really dangerous forces in Israeli politics. Sadly, given his past decisions I expect the worst.
The press office of the Israeli government reports upwards of 600 Israelis killed and more than 100 taken captive. :(
IDF says militants numbered in the high hundreds, which seems to confirm Hamas's claim that 1,000 fighters attacked the border; now many got through and infultrated into Israeli bases and civilian towns/kibbutz is less clear.
Just read Sir Lawrence Freedman's take on this. One point I hadn't thought of with the national unity talk was that reportedly the security cabinet is extreme and dysfunctional because of the parties Netanyahu has brought into government - so if he wants an effective, professional security cabinet to prosecute any war he will need to swap them out for a national unity government.
Apologies for the length but I thought it might be of interest, particularly given Jake's questions and also on the what next section:
QuoteHamas attacks Israel
Why now and what next?
Lawrence Freedman
Oct 8
(https://ci5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/qcJpvH7XI9wJJUb3nCVaSFnTDx-2AMWpA0MdCn4tLCSqlHSk3LYKv0pPv_WVQ09eefUFrHQ2u6q1Gxvs-1YJihhGO3u99KhC8HQQrYMfC8_U3cYRLAw3jZeNF8I8BiYm0NOxFxt1jVYw5HLq-YQHP9-KHtV4OD3c1AhdVNxllqIV2f1D7V5TFSEYo5j7jtQzXldwKlLktniggTXcXZYh6N_MThIspooLBKBKBjyKe3MvgAS0XR8gOZ9apawjQGjWQTyr0OK3jMS9tMBLwudcqBIv-Wd67NZyV2JkcRPSbGoKxJIyMKwT6w=s0-d-e1-ft#https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_2048,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F857ab938-e415-4dd8-a496-668176246cb1_1024x683.jpeg)
The Al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, with a captured Israeli tank, near the Israel/Gaza border. (Photo by Abed Rahim Khatib/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images).
Saturday's terrifying attacks on Israel involved levels of planning, orchestration and audacity that meant it had been under preparation for some time. It was not an angry and impetuous response to recent events, such as settlers storming the Al Aqsa Mosque or the Israel-Saudi dialogue, other than that these events are the latest in a series that convinced Hamas that it was time to shock and shake Israel. The date of 7 October, almost fifty years after the last time that Israel suffered a similar blow will have been ringed for some time. Hamas understands the symbolism.
The easy and obvious comparison between the two attacks is that once again Israel has been caught by surprise. The comparisons can be taken further. The Israelis eventually won the 1973 Yom Kippur War by defeating both the Egyptian and Syrian armies, but it didn't feel like a victory. The human costs were high and showed that the country was still vulnerable, despite the stunning victories in the 1967 war. Arab armies had been dismissed as ineffectual: now they showed that with better weapons and tactics they were still capable of inflicting heavy blows on Israel, and could do so again. The Israeli people took the view was that if only there had been a better appreciation of the danger all this could have been avoided. The government of the day was eventually punished in the polls for the error.
While I am always wary of predicting the course of a war, we can be reasonably sure of one thing. The political backlash within Israel will be harsh and will go beyond inquiries into the intelligence failure. Not yet, for the country will come together as the fighting continues and partisan differences will be put aside. But once the dust settles. The shift is already taking place as opposition parties have been offered membership of an emergency coalition by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who will want the widest possible support for the next steps. According to Yair Lapid, Netanyahu recognises that 'with the current extreme and dysfunctional security cabinet, he can't manage a war. Israel needs to be led by a professional, experienced, and responsible government.' The condition will be to remove the most controversial and disruptive members of his coalition, notably Bezalel Smotrich and Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, a far-rightist who has been busy aggravating relations with the Palestinians without preparing for the consequences.
Not only has the coalition's policies on judicial reform left Israeli society deeply divided, something of which Hamas will have been well aware, but also its active support of extremist groups stirring up trouble in the West Bank and Jerusalem meant that the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) were diverted to protect them. This is one explanation for the empty guard posts and thin lines of defence on the border with Gaza, which affected the ability to respond to the attacks.
The scale and character of these attacks are more limited and terroristic than the canal crossing and armoured thrusts of 1973. Also, unlike 1973, when Israel could not focus on Egyptian forces until it had dealt with the more immediate threat from Syria, so far Israel is fighting just one enemy. It must be aware that this can change, either with an upsurge of violence in the West Bank or else Hezbollah deciding to join the war from Lebanon, with even more deadly consequences.
War and Diplomacy
There is another difference. The 1973 War was a prelude to diplomacy. Up to then all Arab governments had refused to accept Israel's right to exist and rejected proposals for direct negotiations. Egypt's President Anwar Sadat wanted to change that and used the boost to his prestige provided by the first successful days of the war to enter the process that culminated in a peace treaty with Israel, followed, sadly, by his assassination. The current war was preceded by significant negotiations and breakthroughs in Arab-Israeli diplomatic relations, especially with the Gulf states. The latest effort began under the Trump administration, leading to the 'Abraham Accords' (between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco) and has recently been moving on to what Israelis see as the great prize of normal relations with Saudi Arabia. This has been moving forward in recent days, with the US trying to broker a deal (and get the Saudis to help lower the oil price). Netanyahu told the UN in September that the two countries were on 'the cusp' of an agreement. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman also confirmed that 'every day we get closer.'
Palestinians have watched this with dismay because they feel that they are being abandoned by Arab governments keen to take advantage of the high-tech Israeli economy. In the past some sort of peace initiative was seen as precondition for any Saudi move. The Crown Prince continues to insist that the Palestinian issue has not been forgotten, but the Palestinians have few friends in the region, however popular their cause is among ordinary people. The attacks were planned before the latest stage in the Saudi-Israel dialogue. It is possible, however, that as this normalisation process has been underway for some time one motive was to derail it.
The Saudi response thus far has been to call for an immediate halt to escalating violence and noted that it had repeatedly warned that Israel's ongoing occupation of Gaza would propel further violence. Its position remains that a 'two-state solution' is the best option, and that is the view of most of the international community.
The last serious attempt at negotiations to this end, however, was at the close of the Clinton Administration in 2000. The failure of those talks, over the division of Jerusalem and the extent of a Palestinian right to return, was followed by the 'Second Intifada', which included bombs in Israeli cities. This had the effect of pushing Israel to the right and undermining its peace movement. There have been occasional attempts to revive the process, at least with the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank, led by the ailing Mahmoud Abbas. At times there has been cooperation between the Israeli and Palestinian security forces to stabilise the situation. But relations, never good, have deteriorated even more as the Israeli government backed the hardline settler movement. Hamas, already in control of its own territory, remains rejectionist, with no interest in a negotiation even if that was on offer.
Containing Hamas
Once the Second Intifada was defeated, the then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon took a bold step. He concluded that the best way to cope with the Gaza Strip was to withdraw all Israelis from their settlements and put up a fence, and hope that if it left the Palestinians there alone that would be reciprocated. That did not happen. In 2006 Hamas won elections in Gaza and soon consolidated its hold on the territory, pushing out Abbas's Fatah group. It saw the territory as a base from which it could prepare for a final clash with Israel, and was soon accumulating weapons, including, with Iranian help, rockets.
Every time attacks were launched from the area Israel hit back. These armed skirmishes reflected frustration at the conditions in which the population was living and Hamas's determination to show that they were not cowed. In response Israel took the view that it dare not show any weakness. This involved over the years a range of measures, from assassinating Hamas's leaders and bomb-makers, to striking directly at the camps of its fighters.
Occasionally this meant taking the fight to Hamas strongholds in Gaza. For over a decade now, whatever the provocation, the IDF has wished to avoid that. Once it is in hostile territory its troops become vulnerable to ambushes as they try to root out fighters who merge easily with the local population. Experience warned that once these territories are entered, other than for a quick raid with a specific objective, it can be very hard to get out again and it is unlikely that much would be achieved.
It has therefore come to rely more on defensive and punitive measures. In 2014, in an effort to get the air and sea blockade on Gaza lifted, Hamas launched rocket attacks into Israel, while Israel demonstrated the quality of its intelligence by finding and destroying over 30 tunnels. These had been used for both smuggling and as potential routes under the fence through which attacks might be mounted on Israeli communities. Although Hamas fired off thousands of rockets its attacks were blunted by the impressive Iron Dome air defence system.
Thereafter the combination of an improved fence, air defences, and the precision strikes of the air force in taking out Hamas's assets in Gaza, was seen as being sufficient to blunt the threat without taking the risks and anguish of trying to occupy the land. Meanwhile Gaza suffered under a blockade, backed by Egypt, that restricted the import of any goods, including electronic and computer equipment, that could be used to make weapons while preventing people from leaving the territory.
Rather than 'solving' the Hamas problem, whether by military or political means, it could only be contained. There were demonstrations and protests along the fence but nothing that seemed unmanageable. As Seth Franzen noted
QuoteHamas in Gaza appeared isolated, unable to even get more funds from the usual sources, such as Qatar. With Israeli normalization agreements growing in the region, Hamas seemed to present an outdated ideology living in the past.
Yet there were signs of increasing tensions. The junior faction in Gaza – Islamic Jihad – launched a barrage of rockets in May, followed by a targeted Israeli strike that killed three of its leaders. This time Hamas stood back. Egypt and the UN arranged a cease-fire. In July Israeli forces entered Jenin on the West Bank, with the claimed objective of taking out Palestinian militants. This involved hundreds of ground troops and air strikes. Then last month there were clashes close to the Gazan fence, as Palestinians fought with Israeli forces. Last week, Israeli settlers entered the al Aqsa complex in East Jerusalem, apparently helped by Israeli police, to mark the festival of Sukkot, provoking Arab anger. (It was a visit to this mosque by Ariel Sharon in 2000 that helped spark the Second Intifada).
What Next?
Against a backdrop of growing Palestinian frustration and anger containment became more of a challenge. Hamas was working out how to breach Israel's defences. It had long had its rockets as a means of taking the war to Israel but their impact was neutralized by the Iron Dome. On Saturday it launched hundreds simultaneously so that, at least temporarily, it overwhelmed the Iron Dome and some rockets hit targets deep into Israel. More seriously it breached the fence with bulldozers, jumped over it with paragliders and went round it by sea. Many of these moves were thwarted but enough of the first wave were successful to allow border posts to be overrun, hostages taken, and random civilians killed when militants came upon them. Although the operations inside Israel should soon be over, the murder of pensioners and the desecration of bodies will add to pressure on the Israeli government to exact retribution.
Israel is already hurting Hamas back with air strikes attacking infrastructure. More significantly Gaza is being deprived of much of its electricity and water supplies, and its internet has been hit. IDF Chief Spokesman Brig. Gen. Daniel Hagari told a press conference that airstrikes 'would significantly intensify and would eliminate all Hamas terror infrastructure, all houses of terror commanders, and all symbols of Hamas' rule.' But in the end these are buildings, and new buildings can always be found, and for that matter new fighters and leaders.
It has also called up reservists and appears to be preparing to once again re-enter Gaza. The pressure for it to do so will be considerable, but there are also reasons for caution.
First, Hamas will be prepared. This will be a tough fight. Even a limited incursion could be costly.
Second, the IDF neither has the capacity nor the staying power to take control of Gaza. This remains a territory of 2 million people, and as they have nowhere else to go, they will stay, still angry.
Third, for Israel the greatest danger is that the conflict spreads, stretching the IDF, and the Iron Dome, even more. The Lebanese group Hezbollah has praised the operation, and linked it to attempts by Arab governments to improve relations with Israel. According to its leader Hassan Nasrallah
Quote'It sends a message to the Arab and Islamic world, and the international community as a whole, especially those seeking normalization with this enemy, that the Palestinian cause is an everlasting one, alive until victory and liberation.'
I presume that if Hezbollah was part of the plan they would have attacked at the same time to maximise the impact. Iran supports both groups, and it will be considering how much a wider war would complicate its own attempts to normalise relations with the Gulf Arabs. If the fighting drags on, and the images turn to those of Israeli strikes against Gaza, the pressures for Hezbollah to get involved with grow. Hezbollah has already made a gesture by sending rockets and shells against three Israeli positions in the contested Mount Dov region on the border with Lebanon. Isreal responded with artillery and a drone strike. Similarly with the West Bank. Abbas has observed that the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves, without going further, but there must be a risk, whether or not he wills it, of freelance action against Israeli settlers, and for that matter by settler groups against Palestinians.
Fourth, what about the fate of the 100 hostages taken by Hamas and Islamic Jihad (which has also been playing an active role in the attacks)? There was little pattern to the hostage taking (15 Thais are reportedly being held) and some appear to have been captured and held by Palestinian civilians. This issue is going to weigh heavily on Israeli calculations.
As for political objectives, the leader of Hamas's military wing, Muhammad Deif, has said no more than the 'operation' was launched so that 'the enemy will understand that the time of their rampaging without accountability has ended. 'It has also been described as being 'in defence of the Aqsa mosque.' Netanyahu has described Israel's objectives as follows:
Quote'Our first goal is primarily to clear the territory of the enemy forces that have entered and restore security and calm to the settlements that have been attacked. The second goal, concurrently, is to exact a heavy price from the enemy, even in the Gaza Strip. The third goal is to fortify other areas so no one mistakenly joins this war.'
If Israel wants to contain the conflict it needs to get it over as soon as possible. For the same reason it will serve Hamas best if it can be kept going, raising emotions throughout the region.
Israel, having concluded that it was secure because it had found ways to contain the Palestinians and then largely ignore them, now discovers that this is not so easy. The international attention these events have gained, and the dangers if the violence continues, may encourage new diplomatic initiatives – the Security Council will meet while US Secretary of State has been in touch with all interested parties other than Hamas - but with so much else going on this is not a propitious time. Perhaps Israel's new friends in the Gulf will identify a way forward, as the Saudis have tried to do in the past. Perhaps the shock of this latest round of fighting will encourage fresh thinking. It is not as if the history lacks examples of attempts to ease the conflict, some of which made progress.
Local initiatives are more likely. It is hard to see how the hostages can be released safely by a military operation. The Wall Street Journal reports that Egypt has already been asked by Israel to mediate. Egypt was involved with talks underway since May 2021 with Qatar and Hamas (in which Israel has had an input). These were about rebuilding Gaza after past fighting and easing the blockade, in return for a cease-fire. According to Haaretz, they broke down a month ago, when instead of more aid Qatar's representative in Gaza conveyed only Israel's warnings against any escalation. These could be revived, although even if a cease-fire now with an easing of the blockade, without Hamas being weakened for the future, would be seen as a defeat for Israel. But if we look back again to 1975 the long-term impact on Israel lay as much in how the fighting started as in how it ended. Being caught out by the first blow was a psychological victory for its adversary and the effects lingered.
The first point in the what next section is something I've been thinking about. Given how much planning clearly went into this, It feels very likely that Hamas have not also been planning for the Israeli response. I suspect they will have set up ambush points, ways to get around without being spotted, traps etc. Even if, as Smotrich has reportedly argued, they ignore the presence of hostages I suspect actually entering Gaza will be very difficult.
Edit: And also, to Valmy's point about Hamas' end game - I'm not really sure what Israel's end game in Gaza is or could be. I don't know what the goals are or what success will look like.
I am afraid ignoring hostages is the right approach. Similarly how Russia took the horrible plunge at Beslan to ignore hostages in that school. It ended similar raids by the Chechens.
Quote from: Tamas on October 08, 2023, 09:24:16 AMI am afraid ignoring hostages is the right approach. Similarly how Russia took the horrible plunge at Beslan to ignore hostages in that school. It ended similar raids by the Chechens.
By showing Russia to be... Well Russia.
Israels whole thing is its meant to care about the lives of Jews.
Not paying ransoms et al I can see an argument for but just ignoring them even for the current government doesn't seem practical.
Quote from: Tamas on October 08, 2023, 09:24:16 AMI am afraid ignoring hostages is the right approach. Similarly how Russia took the horrible plunge at Beslan to ignore hostages in that school. It ended similar raids by the Chechens.
I'm not sure. I think that definitely becomes complicated if those hostages aren't just Israeli, as seems to be the case. The Thai government may not have much pull - but if there are Americans for example I think it becomes an issue for the Israeli government to manage externally as well asmilitarily.
I think there is also a domestic political angle. As I say this is core 1948 Israeli territory. We've seen music festivals and kibbutzes being raided. This is very much left-wing voting traditional heartland of Israel. It is all very well for the Israeli far-right to argue that they should ignore the hostages - but I don't think I'd be the only person to wonder if they'd take the same slightly callous view if it was settlers who were being held?
I think the domestic politics will be combustible sooner rather than later (possibly unless there's a national unity government). This is very simple but there's a risk of a perception that the Israel that is exempt from IDF service, that most of the IDF was protecting yesterday and that has been trying to change the nature of Israel's state is driving the response while it's the other Israel's who have hostages being held and whose kids who are getting called up and will be fighting in Gaza.
There are reports that dozens of the Hamas hostages are US citizens. If confirmed, this massively ups the stakes.
Quote from: Josquius on October 08, 2023, 04:07:43 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2023, 03:19:23 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 08, 2023, 03:15:22 AMOK. That's already done. So... How about that peace settlement and Israeli withdrawal then?
It's been a long time since this was a topic and I might have missed something big, but doesn't the Hamas charter still call for the elimination of Israel?
Fatah are the legitimate (well. Not really. But more than Hamas) and majority Palestinian government. They gave up violence and turned to negotiation a while ago. For seemingly no benefit.
Fatah hasn't really given up violence and they are deeply unpopular. Hamas is much more popular and better represents the Palestinian people.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2023, 09:46:13 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 08, 2023, 04:07:43 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2023, 03:19:23 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 08, 2023, 03:15:22 AMOK. That's already done. So... How about that peace settlement and Israeli withdrawal then?
It's been a long time since this was a topic and I might have missed something big, but doesn't the Hamas charter still call for the elimination of Israel?
Fatah are the legitimate (well. Not really. But more than Hamas) and majority Palestinian government. They gave up violence and turned to negotiation a while ago. For seemingly no benefit.
Fatah hasn't really given up violence and they are deeply unpopular. Hamas is much more popular and better represents the Palestinian people.
Excellent work Raz in your ongoing quest to paint all Palestinians as potential mass-murders; though not sure what this adds to the debate?
This is just such a clusterfuck.
There really is no good options for an average Palestinian, whether in Gaza or the West Bank. Their leaders are corrupt, Israel is moving in an extremist direction and the other Arab states have turned their back on them. I can understand the frustration that fuels the support for Hamas and extremism.
Likewise the regular secularised leftist Israelis, they are slowly being pressured by demographics into irrelevance.
It just seems like the peace movements in the 90's was such a missed opportunity that will not come back for generations. Now the extremists have lots of influence on both sides and the moderates are losing ground all the time.
Quote from: Threviel on October 08, 2023, 09:58:08 AMThis is just such a clusterfuck.
There really is no good options for an average Palestinian, whether in Gaza or the West Bank. Their leaders are corrupt, Israel is moving in an extremist direction and the other Arab states have turned their back on them. I can understand the frustration that fuels the support for Hamas and extremism.
Likewise the regular secularised leftist Israelis, they are slowly being pressured by demographics into irrelevance.
It just seems like the peace movements in the 90's was such a missed opportunity that will not come back for generations. Now the extremists have lots of influence on both sides and the moderates are losing ground all the time.
The Palestinian people have these enemies:
1. Most recent Israeli governments and their plans for a wider Israel.
2. Hamas
3. Nearly all Arab states
4. The widespread corruption within the PA and society.
5. ....
Their allies, potential or otherwise are:
1. Liberal left political parties and citizens in Western countries.
2. The Islamic Republic of Iran (though actually in the long run, enemy no.5)
3. Many Liberal or left Israeli voters.
4. ...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 08, 2023, 03:19:23 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 08, 2023, 03:15:22 AMOK. That's already done. So... How about that peace settlement and Israeli withdrawal then?
It's been a long time since this was a topic and I might have missed something big, but doesn't the Hamas charter still call for the elimination of Israel?
The Hamas Charter calls for the elimination of Israel, but not the elimination of the Jews.
Article Eleven:
QuoteThe Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?
This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.
But note also Article Thirty-One:
QuoteThe Islamic Resistance Movement is a humanistic movement. It takes care of human rights and is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the followers of other religions. It does not antagonize anyone of them except if it is antagonized by it or stands in its way to hamper its moves and waste its efforts.
Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam. Past and present history are the best witness to that.
Not much evidence Hamas actually follows al of the aspirations of its charter, but the claim that Hamas wants to wipe out the Jews is unfounded.
All quotes from https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
Quote from: Threviel on October 08, 2023, 09:58:08 AMIt just seems like the peace movements in the 90's was such a missed opportunity that will not come back for generations. Now the extremists have lots of influence on both sides and the moderates are losing ground all the time.
The assassination of Rabin was terrible on a number of levels. One of them was that it irrevocably destroyed the peace process. The other is that it proved that assassination as a political tool clearly works.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 08, 2023, 09:18:32 AMI suspect actually entering Gaza will be very difficult.
Will largely disagree here. You can't really harden your defenses like that in a modern war when the enemy has aerial superiority. E.g. in Ukraine the Russian front is solidified because Ukraine's only viable option is to advance, without air superiority, over mine fields. IDF has absolute aerial superiority over all of Gaza, if they want to enter they will and they will open up significant movement corridors with heavy aerial bombing / support, and they will use armor as the tip of the spear, which is hard to take out with insurgent weapons in urban combat.
The bigger issue is if the IDF goes into Gaza, what does it plan to do there, and if it plans to stay it now has a hostile military occupation to run over ~2m people which is hugely manpower intensive. And when such an occupation is running you will have lots of "ground level" interaction with IDF soldiers and Gazan civilians, lots of incidents of insurgents attacking IDF, IDF counterattacking, lots of Gazan civilians dead in the cross fire (similar to our occupation of the larger Iraqi cities in the 2000s.)
Quote from: Threviel on October 08, 2023, 09:58:08 AMIt just seems like the peace movements in the 90's was such a missed opportunity that will not come back for generations. Now the extremists have lots of influence on both sides and the moderates are losing ground all the time.
Maybe. I think the 90s were certainly a missed possibility. But as sad as it is, I think that ultimately peace isn't made by moderates because they're not the ones doing the fighting. They generally don't have the credibility or power to impose peace on the men of violence on their side.
I think moderates are essential and help set the terms and create the conditions for negotiations and peace - but it's always when the largest violent groups begin talking that peace is in prospect. I think it's very rare that the beneficiaries of a peace process, or the people who come out of it with power are the moderates. I think it's a real shame that the rewards don't normally go to the people who were consistently right, but it also makes sense - they're rarely the people able to command the men with guns.
It's why I also wouldn't put too much weight on the Hamas Charter as Grumbler points out.
Totally separately but I've seen lots of military types ppointing out that the drones dropping bombs the drone footage from Hamas etc is now the baseline. This isn't a new tactic anymore or reserved for wealthy militaries, it is relatively accessible to everyone and presumably something conventional forces need to work out how to combat (I've seen footage in Ukraine of soldiers firing at drones - like soldiers in WW1 started firing at planes). I'm not sure how easy it is to deal with? I've no idea but it feels like a serious shift even just in frontlines (and I think this will be the case when the IDF push into Gaza) being visible to you and the other side at all times.
There's big tech gaps in drones. Some of the shittier drones the Russians / Iranians have used for example have suffered hilariously huge casualty rates without ever delivering a payload, these are drones that move at speeds akin to "walking" in terms of aerial combat, and can be very rapidly killed by a number of modern military technologies.
In lower tech situations they are high reward for very low cost, though.
Then there are drones that are almost as sophisticated as fighter jets.
What is the message in all those "there is no perfect response to apartheid" arguments? Any response is going to be imperfect, so we should accept wholesale slaughter of Israeli communities? Is it possible that if Israelis weren't overwhelmingly murdered when under Arab control, ever since the time they were allowed to be expelled mostly alive in 1948, that there would be less impetus and support to create open air prisons?
It is true that the likes of Hamas are not calling for the murder of all Israelis, only the destruction of Israel. However, Hamas can still do things it doesn't call for, and if after this week it isn't obvious to you what it would do with Israelis if Israel ceased to exist, then frankly I just don't think you care.
Quote from: DGuller on October 08, 2023, 10:40:21 AMWhat is the message in all those "there is no perfect response to apartheid" arguments? Any response is going to be imperfect, so we should accept wholesale slaughter of Israeli communities? Is it possible that if Israelis weren't overwhelmingly murdered when under Arab control, ever since the time they were allowed to be expelled mostly alive in 1948, that there would be less impetus and support to create open air prisons?
It is true that the likes of Hamas are not calling for the murder of all Israelis, only the destruction of Israel. However, Hamas can still do things it doesn't call for, and if after this week it isn't obvious to you what it would do with Israelis if Israel ceased to exist, then frankly I just don't think you care.
At the end of the day the bigger question is this--there's around 5m Palestinians between Gaza and the West Bank. What should be done with them? Any dream of "ending" the violence, be it by Hamas or Palestinian groups of other names, runs into the problem that it is fueled by 5m people who are functionally stateless.
QuoteGermany's development minister says her country will review its aid for the Palestinian areas following the attack by Hamas on Israel.
The development ministry says Germany does not finance the Palestinian Authority directly, but a total of 250 million euros ($265 million) is currently pledged in German aid –- half of that for bilateral projects via Germany's overseas aid agency and development bank, and the other half for the UN agency for the Palestinians, UNRWA.
I would doubt Germany truly stops all humanitarian aid, but the fact such a strongly anti-Israel country as Germany is saying this IMO shows how bad Hamas actions are for Palestine's global standing. I think movements like BDS etc are going to all but die in countries like the United States.
There is no perfect response to anti-Semitic fascism.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 08, 2023, 10:33:09 AMWill largely disagree here. You can't really harden your defenses like that in a modern war when the enemy has aerial superiority. E.g. in Ukraine the Russian front is solidified because Ukraine's only viable option is to advance, without air superiority, over mine fields. IDF has absolute aerial superiority over all of Gaza, if they want to enter they will and they will open up significant movement corridors with heavy aerial bombing / support, and they will use armor as the tip of the spear, which is hard to take out with insurgent weapons in urban combat.
The bigger issue is if the IDF goes into Gaza, what does it plan to do there, and if it plans to stay it now has a hostile military occupation to run over ~2m people which is hugely manpower intensive. And when such an occupation is running you will have lots of "ground level" interaction with IDF soldiers and Gazan civilians, lots of incidents of insurgents attacking IDF, IDF counterattacking, lots of Gazan civilians dead in the cross fire (similar to our occupation of the larger Iraqi cities in the 2000s.)
That's fair and I take the point - it may not be the getting in that will be tough but what to do when you're there, staying and leaving.
I think it's been about ten years since the IDF have had significant numbers of troops in Gaza. That's a lot of time for Hamas to prepare for the next time ground troops come in - and a lot of time for the Israelis to not really know the land anymore. Getting in may be easier but as I say I'd expect Hamas to have been building tunnels and hidden posts etc all within Gaza for the next time Israeli troops are there.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 08, 2023, 10:33:09 AMThe bigger issue is if the IDF goes into Gaza, what does it plan to do there, and if it plans to stay it now has a hostile military occupation to run over ~2m people which is hugely manpower intensive. And when such an occupation is running you will have lots of "ground level" interaction with IDF soldiers and Gazan civilians, lots of incidents of insurgents attacking IDF, IDF counterattacking, lots of Gazan civilians dead in the cross fire (similar to our occupation of the larger Iraqi cities in the 2000s.)
You are assuming Bibi cares about all of that. It is a big assumption to make.
He will go on a rampage to destroy as much as he can in Gaza, than push forward to extend Israeli's lines of defense, colonize a bit more territory there and in the West Bank, most likely, push the Palestinians even further and re-fortify the positions.
It's not like any protests from the outside would matter.
The IDF doesn't have much of a choice, really.
The attack has shown that Hamas cannot be contained inside Gaza.
Quote from: viper37 on October 08, 2023, 11:15:33 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 08, 2023, 10:33:09 AMThe bigger issue is if the IDF goes into Gaza, what does it plan to do there, and if it plans to stay it now has a hostile military occupation to run over ~2m people which is hugely manpower intensive. And when such an occupation is running you will have lots of "ground level" interaction with IDF soldiers and Gazan civilians, lots of incidents of insurgents attacking IDF, IDF counterattacking, lots of Gazan civilians dead in the cross fire (similar to our occupation of the larger Iraqi cities in the 2000s.)
You are assuming Bibi cares about all of that. It is a big assumption to make.
He will go on a rampage to destroy as much as he can in Gaza, than push forward to extend Israeli's lines of defense, colonize a bit more territory there and in the West Bank, most likely, push the Palestinians even further and re-fortify the positions.
It's not like any protests from the outside would matter.
Some of this is true, but Israel even under its current far right regime is not going to genocide 5 million people. The question remains what is to be done with them?
I have seen reports in Al Jazeera now that the IDF is sending geolocation based text messages to everyone living in a corridor near the existing border fence (on the Gazan side) telling them to leave the area. Makes me think Israel may be planning on leveling all structures within x feet of the border fence on the Gazan side--maybe making it a "no man's land." We shall see though.
Note that the people in Gaza who have reported this also have indicated they literally
have nowhere to go, Gaza doesn't have extra homes for them to move into.
Quote from: Iormlund on October 08, 2023, 11:19:00 AMThe IDF doesn't have much of a choice, really.
The attack has shown that Hamas cannot be contained inside Gaza.
Yeah I don't disagree and obviously, they need to respond to what happened. But I think it'll be horrible for them in Gaza and I'm not really sure what they can achieve.
They should probably start by building refugee camps. Hamas is not likely to let their human shields leave the Strip, but at least you show willingness to minimize civilian casualties.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 08, 2023, 10:38:48 AMThere's big tech gaps in drones. Some of the shittier drones the Russians / Iranians have used for example have suffered hilariously huge casualty rates without ever delivering a payload, these are drones that move at speeds akin to "walking" in terms of aerial combat, and can be very rapidly killed by a number of modern military technologies.
In lower tech situations they are high reward for very low cost, though.
Then there are drones that are almost as sophisticated as fighter jets.
From what I gather from Ukraine though it's precisely these cheap and plentiful flying lawn mowers with bombs attached that are causing the most trouble. The more advanced ones have effective counter measures available.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2023, 10:50:21 AMThere is no perfect response to anti-Semitic fascism.
You know Arabs are a semitic people too right?
So... Yes.
Quote from: Josquius on October 08, 2023, 11:42:59 AMQuote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2023, 10:50:21 AMThere is no perfect response to anti-Semitic fascism.
You know Arabs are a semitic people too right?
So... Yes.
In the context you know what Semitic means. Don't play that game. It's below you.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 07, 2023, 05:38:52 PMQuote from: Josephus on October 07, 2023, 04:16:05 PMQuote from: Hamilcar on October 07, 2023, 02:33:51 PMNetanyahu in his address told Gaza residents to "flee" because "We will turn all Hamas hiding places into Rubble."
to where?
I wondered the same—I guess into the sea?
It's PR so that when Israel goes civilian smashy smashy there is less blow back than when Russia does it. That's either a good thing or bad thing depending on your political and or religious inclination.
Quote from: HVC on October 08, 2023, 11:44:16 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 08, 2023, 11:42:59 AMQuote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2023, 10:50:21 AMThere is no perfect response to anti-Semitic fascism.
You know Arabs are a semitic people too right?
So... Yes.
In the context you know what Semitic means. Don't play that game. It's below you.
It's Raz I'm talking to. Poking at technicalities in his picture book view of the world is just a bit of crack. :p
Plus there is a bit of a real point there - islamophobic fascists are running the show in Israel these days. Something many are keen to forget.
This is very much a shitheads on both sides situation.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 08, 2023, 11:24:39 AMSome of this is true, but Israel even under its current far right regime is not going to genocide 5 million people. The question remains what is to be done with them?
I have seen reports in Al Jazeera now that the IDF is sending geolocation based text messages to everyone living in a corridor near the existing border fence (on the Gazan side) telling them to leave the area. Makes me think Israel may be planning on leveling all structures within x feet of the border fence on the Gazan side--maybe making it a "no man's land." We shall see though.
Note that the people in Gaza who have reported this also have indicated they literally have nowhere to go, Gaza doesn't have extra homes for them to move into.
No, they will not genocide 5 million people. But there 2 million people in all of Gaza and they will not occupy all of Gaza, only a portion of it.
The area bordering Gaza is blurred on Google Maps, so it's likely a no man's land or zone controlled by the IDF with multiple military installations. I'm guessing these will be moved forward by a few kilometers inside Gaza. The strip will be shrinked further and the population will have to make do with what they have and the international aid that will come.
Israel has never really cared where the people go when they destroy Palestinian neighborhoods to create their own. I don't see this as any different. I just think the fence will move forward.
The situation was harsh before, it will be even worst now.
I did notice that it seems, just from the look on satellite imagery, that Egypt's border with Gaza looks more formidable than Israel's (though it is shorter, of course).
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 08, 2023, 09:45:58 AMThere are reports that dozens of the Hamas hostages are US citizens. If confirmed, this massively ups the stakes.
The US is sending the Gerald Ford carrier group to "support".
Quote from: Josquius You know Arabs are a semitic people too right?
Oh fuck off.
Quote from: Josquius on October 08, 2023, 11:42:59 AMYou know Arabs are a semitic people too right?
My father was a wandering Aramean . . .
I do not think the Arabs of Gaza recognize the kinship.
Remind me, did Siege drink himself to death or is he still alive?
He's leading a commando force into Lebanon.
Quote from: The Brain on October 08, 2023, 01:50:19 PMRemind me, did Siege drink himself to death or is he still alive?
Fell down a well in a tragic incident. Goat didn't make it either.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 08, 2023, 02:02:56 PMHe's leading a commando force into Lebanon.
He is a US soldier, or a retired US soldier by now since he joined around the Second Gulf War time.
Hansmeister might still be leading psyops from his couch though.
Will probably be a while before we have tons of reliable reporting on the damage in Gaza (the few journalists there apparently are having trouble with reliable internet, also most of Gaza has not had power for 30+ hours.) But it seems like the bombings thus far are massive compared to anything we have seen in recent conflicts between Israel and Hamas.
Before I went to bed last night they had announced over 800 sites in Gaza had been bombed. Today 150 sites in a single neighborhood were bombed with over 100 tons of munitions. While I have only seen limited videos / photos from inside Gaza I can't imagine but that the destruction is immense.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 08, 2023, 12:27:18 PMThe US is sending the Gerald Ford carrier group to "support"
It was in the Adriatic to send the Serbs a message.
QuoteThe Israel Defense Forces says the Navy's Shayetet 13 unit has taken into custody the deputy commander of the southern division of the Hamas naval force in Gaza, Muhammad Abu Ghali.
"The suspect is being held and is currently being interrogated by the defense establishment," the IDF says.
No further details are given on how Abu Ghali was captured.
"Deputy Commander" of Hamas' southern naval division, I have to assume that means he's in charge of a few inflatable boats? What kind of navy does Hamas have?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 08, 2023, 02:49:03 PMWill probably be a while before we have tons of reliable reporting on the damage in Gaza (the few journalists there apparently are having trouble with reliable internet, also most of Gaza has not had power for 30+ hours.) But it seems like the bombings thus far are massive compared to anything we have seen in recent conflicts between Israel and Hamas.
Before I went to bed last night they had announced over 800 sites in Gaza had been bombed. Today 150 sites in a single neighborhood were bombed with over 100 tons of munitions. While I have only seen limited videos / photos from inside Gaza I can't imagine but that the destruction is immense.
At one point there were 160 IAF planes in the air at the same time. Incredible amount of air power.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2023, 01:39:27 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 08, 2023, 11:42:59 AMYou know Arabs are a semitic people too right?
My father was a wandering Aramean . . .
I do not think the Arabs of Gaza recognize the kinship.
Neo Hittites are too far lost in time to be recognized as such... ;)
This will blot out most other news stories for weeks perhaps; the terrible Afghanistan earthquake has hardly had a mention here, Ukraine as 'gone quiet' and sadly the climate change heatwave figures are also overshadowed by the terrorist invasion.
Quote from: Josquius on October 08, 2023, 11:47:03 AMQuote from: HVC on October 08, 2023, 11:44:16 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 08, 2023, 11:42:59 AMQuote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2023, 10:50:21 AMThere is no perfect response to anti-Semitic fascism.
You know Arabs are a semitic people too right?
So... Yes.
In the context you know what Semitic means. Don't play that game. It's below you.
It's Raz I'm talking to. Poking at technicalities in his picture book view of the world is just a bit of crack. :p
Plus there is a bit of a real point there - islamophobic fascists are running the show in Israel these days. Something many are keen to forget.
This is very much a shitheads on both sides situation.
That's not a technicality. It's bullshit. You know that. There are some far right people in Israel's government. But Muslims still work and live in Israel. They have the right to vote, the right to speech and all the rights of modern democracy. The Israeli government for all it's faults didn't just shoot political enemies in the legs and throw them off buildings.
Quote from: mongers on October 08, 2023, 03:33:38 PMThis will blot out most other news stories for weeks perhaps; the terrible Afghanistan earthquake has hardly had a mention here, Ukraine as 'gone quiet' and sadly the climate change heatwave figures are also overshadowed by the terrorist invasion.
Frankly I am content to not care one whit about anything that happens in Afghanistan. I can think of no people on earth who have more ardently expressed their desire to live in a shithole—I am happy to leave them to it. The idea of giving them one penny of aid is confusing to me.
Yesterday terrorist attack and the retaliation is figurately off the scale, well at least on this one:
(https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/INTERACTIVE-Gaza-human-toll-1696686056.png)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 08, 2023, 03:41:47 PMQuote from: mongers on October 08, 2023, 03:33:38 PMThis will blot out most other news stories for weeks perhaps; the terrible Afghanistan earthquake has hardly had a mention here, Ukraine as 'gone quiet' and sadly the climate change heatwave figures are also overshadowed by the terrorist invasion.
Frankly I am content to not care one whit about anything that happens in Afghanistan. I can think of no people on earth who have more ardently expressed their desire to live in a shithole—I am happy to leave them to it. The idea of giving them one penny of aid is confusing to me.
Yeah, fuck Afghanistan.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2023, 03:34:42 PMThat's not a technicality. It's bullshit. You know that. There are some far right people in Israel's government. But Muslims still work and live in Israel. They have the right to vote, the right to speech and all the rights of modern democracy. The Israeli government for all it's faults didn't just shoot political enemies in the legs and throw them off buildings.
I suggest you read more the discrimination of this minority.
I also suggest you read about the treatment of Palestinians who need to work in Israel, or simply cross the territory to reach other parts of their fragmented reality.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 08, 2023, 03:41:47 PMI can think of no people on earth who have more ardently expressed their desire to live in a shithole
I don't remember all of the Afghanis being given a choice to stay or leave. Nor do I remember them being given a choice to live under Taliban rule.
It's not as if the West proposed a stable model of democracy free of corruption with equality for all. We kinda dropped the ball on this country. Again.
Quote from: viper37 on October 08, 2023, 04:09:19 PMI also suggest you read about the treatment of Palestinians who need to work in Israel, or simply cross the territory to reach other parts of their fragmented reality.
I'm old enough to remember the constant bombings in the 90's until the walls went up. Israel is not doing all of this expensive, both in economical an political term, walling in for shits and giggles. They do it because they were, and are, constantly being targeted by Palestinian terrorists operating from Palestinian territory and keeping a very very watchful eye on Palestinian territory radically decreases Israeli deaths from terrorism.
It's not very nice, but blowing up Israeli civilians is even less nice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ83Q7tM4A0
Footage of the parasail commando attack on a rave.
Quote from: mongers on October 08, 2023, 03:48:37 PMYesterday terrorist attack and the retaliation is figurately off the scale, well at least on this one:
(https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/INTERACTIVE-Gaza-human-toll-1696686056.png)
Yet from the reporting that one kidnapped German girl is worth over 6400 dead Palestinians.
The double standards are truly depressing.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2023, 03:34:42 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 08, 2023, 11:47:03 AMQuote from: HVC on October 08, 2023, 11:44:16 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 08, 2023, 11:42:59 AMQuote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2023, 10:50:21 AMThere is no perfect response to anti-Semitic fascism.
You know Arabs are a semitic people too right?
So... Yes.
In the context you know what Semitic means. Don't play that game. It's below you.
It's Raz I'm talking to. Poking at technicalities in his picture book view of the world is just a bit of crack. :p
Plus there is a bit of a real point there - islamophobic fascists are running the show in Israel these days. Something many are keen to forget.
This is very much a shitheads on both sides situation.
That's not a technicality. It's bullshit. You know that. There are some far right people in Israel's government. But Muslims still work and live in Israel. They have the right to vote, the right to speech and all the rights of modern democracy. The Israeli government for all it's faults didn't just shoot political enemies in the legs and throw them off buildings.
It's not bullshit at all. It's a fact. Arabs are a semitic people.
Obviously nobody actually uses anti semitism like that. But twisting your words in jest does make them more true than you know.
It's ignorant in the extreme to pretend the entire problem and reason there isn't peace in the region lies on the Palestinian side and with Palestinian extremists (which evidently in your view is a redundant thing to say)
You really ought to read up about Palestine if you think this "there's normal people in Israel, they aren't all nazis!" is some kind of defence of their government.
Quote from: Threviel on October 08, 2023, 04:18:09 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 08, 2023, 04:09:19 PMI also suggest you read about the treatment of Palestinians who need to work in Israel, or simply cross the territory to reach other parts of their fragmented reality.
I'm old enough to remember the constant bombings in the 90's until the walls went up. Israel is not doing all of this expensive, both in economical an political term, walling in for shits and giggles. They do it because they were, and are, constantly being targeted by Palestinian terrorists operating from Palestinian territory and keeping a very very watchful eye on Palestinian territory radically decreases Israeli deaths from terrorism.
It's not very nice, but blowing up Israeli civilians is even less nice.
I'm not pretending one side has the moral high ground, unlike Raz.
The Hamas is clearly a terrorist organization. The Hezbollah and the Islami Jihad too. I do remember the last Intifada in the 2000s.
One can't denied however that Palestinians are routinely subjected to abritrary arrests and executions. Only those who can prove they owned their lands before 1948 - not an easy task in such an environment - can remain there when Israel decide to displace a Palestinian neighborhood to construct a new colony.
You can look at any map post 2000 and you can clearly see the Palestinian territory constantly shrinking. You can accept the excuse of wars in the past, where Israel annexed territories from its neighbors, but you can't deny that it's constantly expanding now at the expense of the Palestinians.
If the Mexican government was building colonies of Mexicans in Texas, the GOP would want more than a wall at the southern border.
I can not excuse the suicide bombings or the hostages, but I can not condone the constant colonization of the Palestinian territories.
Quote from: viper37 on October 08, 2023, 04:09:19 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2023, 03:34:42 PMThat's not a technicality. It's bullshit. You know that. There are some far right people in Israel's government. But Muslims still work and live in Israel. They have the right to vote, the right to speech and all the rights of modern democracy. The Israeli government for all it's faults didn't just shoot political enemies in the legs and throw them off buildings.
I suggest you read more the discrimination of this minority.
I also suggest you read about the treatment of Palestinians who need to work in Israel, or simply cross the territory to reach other parts of their fragmented reality.
Is anything I have written false? A Muslim living in Israel has rights. A Jew living in Palestine won't be living very long. The Arabs of the Gaza strip used to be fairly prosperous. They had a higher standard of living the Arabs of Jordan. Then Arafat launched the Second Intifada.
Quote from: Josquius on October 08, 2023, 04:23:47 PMIt's not bullshit at all. It's a fact. Arabs are a semitic people.
Obviously nobody actually uses anti semitism like that. But twisting your words in jest does make them more true than you know.
It's ignorant in the extreme to pretend the entire problem and reason there isn't peace in the region lies on the Palestinian side and with Palestinian extremists (which evidently in your view is a redundant thing to say)
You really ought to read up about Palestine if you think this "there's normal people in Israel, they aren't all nazis!" is some kind of defence of their government.
Arabs speak a Semitic language. Anti-Semitism refers explicitly to the Jewish race. It never referred to language only race. When the Europeans were labeling the Jews Semites they did not, by and large, speak a Semitic language. Most Jews spoke the language of the country they lived in or Yidish which is an Indo-European language. But if you'd prefer I can just use the term Jew-hater. That adequately describes the Palestinians. Something like 93% of Palestinians are antisemtic. I mean Jew Haters.
Do you really believe that the Israeli government which affords rights to minorities and them full citizenship is equivalent to Hamas run Gaza which routinely kills people who disagree with it?
Quote from: viper37 on October 08, 2023, 04:11:24 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 08, 2023, 03:41:47 PMI can think of no people on earth who have more ardently expressed their desire to live in a shithole
I don't remember all of the Afghanis being given a choice to stay or leave. Nor do I remember them being given a choice to live under Taliban rule.
It's not as if the West proposed a stable model of democracy free of corruption with equality for all. We kinda dropped the ball on this country. Again.
I guess you missed it, then. Afghanistan, a country of 40 million, with an Army of ~200k, let 50,000 insurgents decide who their government was going to be without any meaningful opposition. As far as I am concerned that is a collective decision to accept the Taliban, and I suspect most Afghans are fine with that. But, they chose it--they can live with it, and when you decide to live with the Taliban that means you don't get to be part of the nice things normal countries get.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2023, 04:41:02 PMArabs speak a Semitic language. Anti-Semitism refers explicitly to the Jewish race. It never referred to language only race. When the Europeans were labeling the Jews Semites they did not, by and large, speak a Semitic language. Most Jews spoke the language of the country they lived in or Yidish which is an Indo-European language.
Race is a vague and hand wavey unscientific concept. Though it's definitely fair to say the Arabs are a semitic people. Pretty sure the term anti semitism actually came after ye olde racial pseudo scientists came up with the concept of semitic peoples (which included far more than just jews) .
We all know what anti semitism actually means despite the nerdy fun of delving into etymologies and historic pseudo science.
QuoteBut if you'd prefer I can just use the term Jew-hater.
My point was Hamas aren't unique in being absolute cunts. There's plenty on the Israeli side just as bad.
They've long held disproportionate power though lately have gained far more than they ever have. Did you miss the news a few months back of Israel being rather trumpy?
QuoteThat adequately describes the Palestinians. Something like 93% of Palestinians are antisemtic. I are Jew Haters.
Do you really believe that the Israeli government which affords rights to minorities and them full citizenship is equivalent to Hamas run Gaza which routinely kills people who disagree with it?
You're comparing the government of a democratic country that happens to be currently ran by fascists and who are having to work hard to remould it in their image to a group of fascists who have had their own personal domain for some time now.
A more accurate comparison for hamas here would be those particular Israeli groups. You'll find many of them saying shit that really wouldn't look out of place from Islamic extremists with a few terms swapped.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2023, 04:30:21 PMIs anything I have written false? A Muslim living in Israel has rights. A Jew living in Palestine won't be living very long. The Arabs of the Gaza strip used to be fairly prosperous. They had a higher standard of living the Arabs of Jordan. Then Arafat launched the Second Intifada.
There's a drastic blocus in place by Israel and Egypt. That explains the drop in living condition. It can't be help with the Hamas ruling the place, but it's not all about Palestinians ruling the place.
And I doubt your assertion that the Arabs of Gaza were fairly prosperous as of 2000, more than the average Jordanian.
GDP per capita in 2000 was over 1.5x that of Gaza for Jordan.
https://tradingeconomics.com/palestine/gdp-per-capita-ppp
https://tradingeconomics.com/jordan/gdp-per-capita-ppp
It certainly dropped during the 2nd Intifida, wars on your own territory tend to do that.
As for Jews living in Palestine, well, it's been tried before, living side by side with others. It seems that once they run out of Philistines or Pagans to kill and dismember, they all turn on one another, so it's not a viable solution for anyone.
There need to be a viable Palestinian State with clear borders. Even a hawk like Golda Meir recognized that. Jews and Palestinians will never live together in peace inside the same country, Israelis aren't interested in granting them equal rights and be assimilated by the majority.
Keeping them in near apartheid territories like that while constantly constricting them further, war or no war, is only leading to further conflicts like this and alienating foreign opinion against Israel - which doesn't even need that big of a push in some circles.
Quote from: Josquius on October 08, 2023, 04:52:11 PMRace is a vague and hand wavey unscientific concept. Though it's definitely fair to say the Arabs are a semitic people. Pretty sure the term anti semitism actually came after ye olde racial pseudo scientists came up with the concept of semitic peoples (which included far more than just jews) .
Think again. Semitic is linguistic, it was borrowed by racists specifically to refer to Jews. The Nazis broadcast to Arabs in the 30's and 40's to encourage them to attack the Jews. They didn't call the Arabs Semites then. Cause quite a few race riots in the middle east. That's one of the root causes of our problems today.
QuoteMy point was Hamas aren't unique in being absolute cunts. There's plenty on the Israeli side just as bad.
They've long held disproportionate power though lately have gained far more than they ever have. Did you miss the news a few months back of Israel being rather trumpy?
Yeah, here's the problem. "rather Trumpy" isn't the same as mass murdering dictatorship. The far right in Israel is part of the same phenomenon in whole West. Nigel Farange, Donald Trump, Marie Le Pen are all manifestations of it. When Brexit passed Britain didn't become Nazi Germany. If you take the quotes of Israeli far right they don't sound differ than the some of the more dodgy members of the Tories. You really don't find much similar in western rhetoric Israeli like
"The time has come to kill the Jews" or encouraging people to just randomly attack Jews with knives and cleavers (the first one came from Fatah the second from Hamas)
What exactly is meant by some Israelis being just as bad as Hamas? Murdering every civilian they run across in cold blood bad? Cheering on murdering those civilians bad? Teaching th0ire children to cheer on murdering those civilians bad?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2023, 06:05:10 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 08, 2023, 05:23:47 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2023, 04:30:21 PMIs anything I have written false? A Muslim living in Israel has rights. A Jew living in Palestine won't be living very long. The Arabs of the Gaza strip used to be fairly prosperous. They had a higher standard of living the Arabs of Jordan. Then Arafat launched the Second Intifada.
There's a drastic blocus in place by Israel and Egypt. That explains the drop in living condition. It can't be help with the Hamas ruling the place, but it's not all about Palestinians ruling the place.
And I doubt your assertion that the Arabs of Gaza were fairly prosperous as of 2000, more than the average Jordanian.
GDP per capita in 2000 was over 1.5x that of Gaza for Jordan.
https://tradingeconomics.com/palestine/gdp-per-capita-ppp
https://tradingeconomics.com/jordan/gdp-per-capita-ppp
It certainly dropped during the 2nd Intifida, wars on your own territory tend to do that.
As for Jews living in Palestine, well, it's been tried before, living side by side with others. It seems that once they run out of Philistines or Pagans to kill and dismember, they all turn on one another, so it's not a viable solution for anyone.
There need to be a viable Palestinian State with clear borders. Even a hawk like Golda Meir recognized that. Jews and Palestinians will never live together in peace inside the same country, Israelis aren't interested in granting them equal rights and be assimilated by the majority.
Keeping them in near apartheid territories like that while constantly constricting them further, war or no war, is only leading to further conflicts like this and alienating foreign opinion against Israel - which doesn't even need that big of a push in some circles.
Got it from this
QuoteAt the time of the September 1993 signing of the Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles, conditions in the territories were far better than in most Arab states – despite the steep economic decline caused by the intifada of 1987-93. But within six months of Arafat's arrival in Gaza in July 1994, the standard of living in the Strip fell by 25%, and more than half the area's residents claimed to have been happier under Israel. Even so, at the time Arafat launched his war of terrorism in September 2000, Palestinian income per capita was nearly double Syria's, more than four times Yemen's, and 10% higher than Jordan's – one of the better-off Arab states. Only the oil-rich Gulf states and Lebanon were more affluent.
By the time of Arafat's death in November 2004, his terrorism war had slashed this income to a fraction of its earlier levels, with real GDP per capita some 35% below the pre-September 2000 level, unemployment more than doubling, and numerous Palestinians reduced to poverty and despondency. And while Israel's suppression of the terrorism war generated a steady recovery, with the years 2007-11 even recording an average yearly growth above 8%, by mid-2014 a fully blown recession had taken hold, especially in the Gaza Strip.
https://besacenter.org/its-not-the-economy-stupid/
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2023, 05:34:58 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 08, 2023, 04:52:11 PMRace is a vague and hand wavey unscientific concept. Though it's definitely fair to say the Arabs are a semitic people. Pretty sure the term anti semitism actually came after ye olde racial pseudo scientists came up with the concept of semitic peoples (which included far more than just jews) .
Think again. Semitic is linguistic, it was borrowed by racists specifically to refer to Jews. The Nazis broadcast to Arabs in the 30's and 40's to encourage them to attack the Jews. They didn't call the Arabs Semites then. Cause quite a few race riots in the middle east. That's one of the root causes of our problems today.
You're wrong. Quickly checking up, and I don't believe I didn't remember this at first, but semetic is a really old term for (classical world) Asians. Derives from the noahs arc legend and his 3 sons going off to europe, Africa, and Asia and fathering everyone.
The linguistic use is much later. Like the very field itself. The term semitic due to its past racial relevance was reused for the language family that fit the people so labelled.
Anyway. All completely off topic. Didn't expect that one to fly over your head.
QuoteMy
Yeah, here's the problem. "rather Trumpy" isn't the same as mass murdering dictatorship. The far right in Israel is part of the same phenomenon in whole West. Nigel Farange, Donald Trump, Marie Le Pen are all manifestations of it. When Brexit passed Britain didn't become Nazi Germany. If you take the quotes of Israeli far right they don't sound differ than the some of the more dodgy members of the Tories. You really don't find much similar in western rhetoric Israeli like
"The time has come to kill the Jews" or encouraging people to just randomly attack Jews with knives and cleavers (the first one came from Fatah the second from Hamas)
Again you have a really blinkered view of things. For a fun look at quite how horrid Israeli extremists are I recall one of louis theroux docs was on them. Like anything louis theroux worth a look.
There absolutely are plenty on the Israeli side who think Arabs should be eliminated.
They don't generally call for random attacks on Arabs as from their position of power that would be stupid. Instead they want to get the forces of the state to do it.
Quote from: DGuller on October 08, 2023, 05:56:17 PMWhat exactly is meant by some Israelis being just as bad as Hamas? Murdering every civilian they run across in cold blood bad? Cheering on murdering those civilians bad? Teaching th0ire children to cheer on murdering those civilians bad?
In November 2006, Lieberman, who described Arab members of the Knesset that meet with Hamas as "terror collaborators", called for their execution.[...]In remarks in the Knesset in March 2008, shortly after 6 March attack at Jerusalem's Mercaz HaRav yeshiva, Lieberman commented that "yesterday's attack can not be disconnected from the Arab MKs incitement, which we hear daily in the Knesset."[81] Directing his comments at Arab MKs whose comments Lieberman describes as anti-Israel incitement, he added that "a new administration will be established and then we will take care of you." [...]In 1998, news reports stated that Lieberman suggested the bombing of the Aswan Dam in retaliation for Egyptian support for Yasser Arafat.[83][84] In 2001, reports stated that he told a group of ambassadors from the Former Soviet Union that if Egypt and Israel were ever to face off militarily again, that Israel could bomb the Aswan Dam. [...]Following a series of terror attacks on Israeli civilians perpetrated by Palestinian militants during a three-day period in March 2002, Lieberman proposed issuing an ultimatum to the Palestinian National Authority to halt all militant activity or face wide-ranging attacks. He said, "if it were up to me I would notify the Palestinian Authority that tomorrow at ten in the morning we would bomb all their places of business in Ramallah, for example." [...]In July 2003, reacting to a commitment made by then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to the US, where amnesty could be given to approximately 350 Palestinian prisoners including members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Lieberman rejected a chance to participate in the related committee and said "It would be better to drown these prisoners in the Dead Sea if possible, since that's the lowest point in the world," [...]In January 2009, during the Gaza War, Lieberman argued that Israel "must continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese in World War II. Then, too, the occupation of the country was unnecessary."[103] This threat has been interpreted by some media commentators, including Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, as an allusion to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and as advocacy for a nuclear strike on Gaza. [...]In January 2014, according to Haaretz, Lieberman would not support any peace agreement that did not include the exchange of Israeli Arab land and population. Lieberman stated: "I will not support any peace deal that will allow the return of even one Palestinian refugee to Israel." [...]On 8 March 2015 he stated at a conference in Herzliya: Quote'Whoever is with us should get everything. Whoever is against us, there's nothing else to do. We have to lift up an axe and remove his head, otherwise we won't survive here. There is no reason that Umm al-Fahm will be part of Israel.'[108]
His party won 7 seats (5.74% of the vote) in the 2020 election. It once had 15. He was a member of the government after and when he made most of his inflammatory comments.
The current Prime Minister has always been opposed to the Oslo peace accord and his views are pretty clear:
They asked me before the election if I'd honor [the Oslo Accords]", "I said I would, but ... I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I'm concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue."[286] Not as bad as the Hamas or the other terrorists, but clearly someone who does not believe in any kind of peace.
How do you want to negotiate any kind of agreement with someone like that? Or someone like Lieberman? These people represent 35% of the Israeli population. 35% who do not want peace.
Wow, 5.74% of the vote. That's worse than I thought.
Okay, one more question just to make sure we are clear on the concepts. There are many bad things in the world, let's rank several of them.
1) Making inflammatory comments.
2) Killing captured members of military.
3) Killing of civilian men.
4) Killing of civilian women.
5) Killing of civilian elderly.
6) Killing of civilian children.
Yeah, to put it frank--there are few if any Israelis who are "as bad as Hamas." It's like saying someone like the many far right "influencers" out there that ape borderline Nazi shit here in the United States are as "bad as real Nazis". The big difference between them and actual Nazis, is actual Nazis killed millions and millions of people.
People who use such rhetoric are, without any doubt, cause for serious concern. Especially if their rhetoric increases general tensions and violence in society. But there is still a very material difference between rabble rousers and Hamas, in that Hamas has killed many, many thousands of people over the last 30 years, and almost all of them were civilians--illegal targets under the laws of war. And importantly, they were deliberate targets.
Something that is very often obscured by people who engage in "but West just as bad" ism in all these conflicts is they simply count any civilian killed as a war crime. However, the laws of war do actually care about intent. An incidental civilian casualty is very different from a deliberate one. The same way that losing control of your car and running over an old lady is treated far differently under the law than walking into a Church and shooting and old lady to death.
Now, in the far past--as in 70+ years ago, when there were instances of Jewish massacres of Arab Palestinians, that is a situation where you can say they were just as bad. But that isn't the situation today, at not point in recent memory has Israel gone around deliberately mass murdering civilians as a war goal.
We can bring up Israel's occupation of the West Bank, its blockade of Gaza--how it has let some of its violent settlers have too much of a leash, but all of those things are fundamentally quite different from deliberate mass murder of civilians. That doesn't mean they are laudable, that they are excusable--but equating them is bullshit. Don't equate mass murder of civilians to things that aren't mass murder of civilians, there is no good intentioned person who does that.
Quote from: DGuller on October 08, 2023, 07:34:15 PMOkay, one more question just to make sure we are clear on the concepts. There are many bad things in the world, let's rank several of them.
1) Making inflammatory comments.
2) Killing captured members of military.
3) Killing of civilian men.
4) Killing of civilian women.
5) Killing of civilian elderly.
6) Killing of civilian children.
We had SiegeBreaker here a while ago who said Palestinian wells should be poisoned. He almost said he did it.
#2, is not applicable, the Palestinians have no military, but summary executions of wounded Palestinians (https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/israelpalestine-summary-execution-wounded-palestinian) does seem to happen and the military is not keen to prosecute such actions.
The rest of the points, we can certainly agree that at certain times the Israeli government does not take gloves when it retaliates against terrorist attacks like this last one.
I don't think all Palestinians living in Gaza are complicit in the Hamas actions. I don't think they even all support the Hamas actions or line of thought. Contrary to Israelis, they aren't regularly polled for their opinion on the subject, and expressing dissent is not openly encouraged. Granted, they chose the Hamas. In 2006. Had they been given a choice in 2011, they may have chosen another political party. Or not. It's impossible to know without an election.
What we do know is that on the other side, we have the leaders of the government who absolutely refuse the idea of peace, and one who goes so far as to believe that all Arab-Israelis should be expelled from the society. And 35% of the current electorate vote for these people.
Again, how can you make peace when no one wants peace? It's not a question or moral superiority here. Hamas does not want peace and a significant proportion of the Israeli population does not want peace since they vote for parties that do not want a peaceful solution to the conflict, they want to the Palestinians out of the territory they see as theirs.
Wether they want to kill them or not is beside the point, they don't want them as neighbors, as friends, as co-workers. They want them out and they want the space they occupy to build their own place with their own people.
Some of them are willing to tolerate Arabs who were born within the territory of Israel, for now. Some like Lieberman, clearly not. And it seems to cause no problem for the Likud and their supporters when they form a coalition with such people, so clearly, that's not too bothersome for these 30% that Arab-Israelis would be seen as 2nd class citizens with dubious loyalty.
Haaretz editorial posits that the policies pursued by the current government are the leading cause in these attacks. Clearly, I'm not pulling things out of thin air here.
Last I checked, Israel was a democracy. People voted for the Likud. Netanyahu was elected Prime Minister, many times over, and he went into a coalition with Lieberman. Both politicians were accused of corruption and got away because of their connections. And the people of Israel are still electing them.
I can not and will not support terrorism, but I can't condone stealing people homes in the middle of the night and expecting them to simply move elsewhere peacefully, especially when they're not wanted anywhere. It's bound to happen that at some point something like this is going to happen again & again & again & again.
Israel has no choice but to defend itself, but it's own policies created this mess over the years. (https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/editorial/2023-10-08/ty-article-opinion/netanyahu-bears-responsibility/0000018b-0b9d-d8fc-adff-6bfd1c880000)
Netanyahu reemphasizing today there is a "long war ahead", and a member of his cabinet saying the "First Gazan War will be the last." Not promising for anyone hoping for a quick cease fire outcome.
UN is saying over 120,000 Gazans have already been displaced since the fighting started.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 08, 2023, 08:58:09 PMUN is saying over 120,000 Gazans have already been displaced since the fighting started.
That doesn't surprise me - even yesterday more or less as soon as the attack started there were also pictures of Gazan women and children living near the fence fleeing as they knew what would be coming. Obviously fleeing within Gaza is a relative term.
Quote from: DGuller on October 08, 2023, 07:34:15 PMOkay, one more question just to make sure we are clear on the concepts. There are many bad things in the world, let's rank several of them.
1) Making inflammatory comments.
2) Killing captured members of military.
3) Killing of civilian men.
4) Killing of civilian women.
5) Killing of civilian elderly.
6) Killing of civilian children.
And both Hamas and Israelis have done all the above.
As I noted before--and is more useful, deliberate planned killing of civilians is he key here. You can follow every law of war that exists and still kill civilians, this is a brutal reality of war. There is a reason we specifically, as the society of "civilized nations" have specifically said that it is the deliberate targeting of civilians that is a war crime.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 08, 2023, 09:17:22 PMAs I noted before--and is more useful, deliberate planned killing of civilians is he key here. You can follow every law of war that exists and still kill civilians, this is a brutal reality of war. There is a reason we specifically, as the society of "civilized nations" have specifically said that it is the deliberate targeting of civilians that is a war crime.
I agree. But I'm not sure how one defends the actions of the sorts of incursions the Israelis have made into Gaza over the years and particularly over the last 24 hours to be anything other than the delivered killing of civilians.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 08, 2023, 09:22:45 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 08, 2023, 09:17:22 PMAs I noted before--and is more useful, deliberate planned killing of civilians is he key here. You can follow every law of war that exists and still kill civilians, this is a brutal reality of war. There is a reason we specifically, as the society of "civilized nations" have specifically said that it is the deliberate targeting of civilians that is a war crime.
I agree. But I'm not sure how one defends the actions of the sorts of incursions the Israelis have made into Gaza over the years and particularly over the last 24 hours to be anything other than the delivered killing of civilians.
With the fog of war I won't speculate too wildly on what the IDF is doing in Gaza, but Hamas is well known to use basically every apartment building in Gaza in various ways for C&C, storage, etc. This is actually a war crime in itself--intermixing military assets with purely civilian buildings is a war crime
for the party that does it, not the enemy that bombs it, the IDF supposedly is issuing warnings to evacuate the buildings before they bomb them.
The degree to which that is going on, what % of bombs dropped have followed that process, neither of us know. It won't surprise me at all to find out some of the bombings have been nigh-indiscriminate which would be immoral and possibly war crimes depending on the particulars. But I'm not going to pretend I know what is happening.
The merits or lack thereof of the various sides and factions in and outside of Israel are not really pertinent at this point.
The governing authority in Gaza invaded national territory, murdered civilians en masse, kidnapped others. No nation with the capability to resist or retaliate would tolerate such a situation, nor would it willingly accept an outcome where such an attack could be easily repeated. Any nation in that position with the capability to do so would take any steps it could to prevent such an outcome from ever being conceivable again. And a democratic nation, because it must be responsive to the demands of its citizens, is more likely to be thorough in that respect, not less.
Of course Israel's retaliation measured in terms of lives lost will be disproportionate to the damage caused. That is a simple function of Israel' far greater military capability and of Hamas' own strategy of using the bodies of the citizens of Gaza as its principal lines of defense. This is both the means of Hamas operational art (such as it is) and a strategic end in itself: the enforced creation of unwilling martyrs for use as political propaganda and to burnish Hamas' reputation for "tough" resistance.
Sometimes I wonder how much the practice of using own civilians as human shields would be utilized if it didn't work so well with some in the West.
Would not have worked on the Romans.
Yeah, but we hold ourself to a higher standard than the Romans.
The problem is that the blame is directed the wrong way, it should be directed at the bastards not following the rules of war and not at the ones trying to minimize civilian casualties.
Like with Russia it seems like the western propaganda game entirely stopped when the Cold War ended.
But Israel is the odd one out in the ME. It's 1) democratic and 2) Jewish. Either one would make it anathema to many people in Europe, and when you add them together...
I think some part of a solution could be a better propaganda effort by western security services. Make sure that all information that can be shared is shared, show how the bad guys behave badly, share pictures of atrocities, most of all perhaps put in an effort to expose the useful idiots, pay Hollywood to make heroic pictures and so on...
If the bad guys could be solidly painted as bad guys political opposition to helping out Ukraine, Taiwan and Israel would decrease. Infiltrate MAGA and the likes in different countries and make them fanatical anti-China, anti-Russia and so on, they are stupid enough that it should be easy.
Extraordinary to read that there is still fighting in five locations inside Israel as there are still Hamas fighters in those locations. I knew there were some holdouts yesterday but assumed that was over by now.
The only solution is a permanent destruction of the culture and society which gives rise to cancers like Hamas. Palestinian society needs to be totally reformed the way Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 09, 2023, 03:02:13 AMThe only solution is a permanent destruction of the culture and society which gives rise to cancers like Hamas. Palestinian society needs to be totally reformed the way Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were.
FWIW the same is true of Putinist Russia, though their nukes will probably spare them.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 09, 2023, 03:02:13 AMThe only solution is a permanent destruction of the culture and society which gives rise to cancers like Hamas. Palestinian society needs to be totally reformed the way Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were.
Yeah, there are two solutions. The Roman one where they are all killed and the one where they are lifted out of poverty and integrated into the modern world.
I think we are closer to the Roman solution and I have very little belief that the second one is possible. It was possible in Germany due to the nazi government losing all credibility and the threat of the Soviets. But the population was educated and the basic values present.
In Gaza you have an indoctrinated relatively uneducated poor population that supports a Hamas that has gained credibility and will do everything in its power to sabotage any efforts. To that an enraged and more and more extremist Israel that is not in any mood what so ever to play Gandhi.
Quote from: Threviel on October 09, 2023, 02:58:04 AMIf the bad guys could be solidly painted as bad guys political opposition to helping out Ukraine, Taiwan and Israel would decrease.
One of these things is not like the others.
Quote from: DGuller on October 08, 2023, 11:38:29 PMSometimes I wonder how much the practice of using own civilians as human shields would be utilized if it didn't work so well with some in the West.
That's not the main reason they do it. Its for domestic consumption. Israel caring less about civilian casualties plays right into their hands. As mentioned its Islamic Extremism 101- troll your opponents into harsh reprisals where lots of muslims are killed so you can go "see, told you so, join us in the war of civilizations the propaganda demands"
In Sweden the attack was celebrated in several places. Biggest celebration in a city in the south of Sweden where 200-300 cars made up an impromptu parade. Many people in Sweden really hate Jews.
Palestinians are sick society. This is Bucha-level savagery: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/israel-music-festival-massacre-eyewitness-account
Quote from: Josquius on October 09, 2023, 03:16:07 AMQuote from: Threviel on October 09, 2023, 02:58:04 AMIf the bad guys could be solidly painted as bad guys political opposition to helping out Ukraine, Taiwan and Israel would decrease.
One of these things is not like the others.
Personally I think that useful idiots ought to be shunned from civil society.
QuoteDefense Minister Yoav Gallant: "I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly."
Human animals?
Quote from: The Brain on October 09, 2023, 03:58:07 AMIn Sweden the attack was celebrated in several places. Biggest celebration in a city in the south of Sweden where 200-300 cars made up an impromptu parade. Many people in Sweden really hate Jews.
A certain type of people, I'm guessing.
Quote from: Threviel on October 09, 2023, 04:22:19 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 09, 2023, 03:16:07 AMQuote from: Threviel on October 09, 2023, 02:58:04 AMIf the bad guys could be solidly painted as bad guys political opposition to helping out Ukraine, Taiwan and Israel would decrease.
One of these things is not like the others.
Personally I think that useful idiots ought to be shunned from civil society.
You seriously think Taiwan and Ukraine being under threat of destruction from the major military power next door are remotely comparable to Palestine?
In the Israel /Palestine situation it's Israel who are the major military power with the ability to extinguish their smaller weaker neighbour.
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2023, 05:44:17 AMHuman animals?
Translation issue?
I've seen several different versions of Israeli PM statements that differ quite a bit, so have not been sure enough to quote them here.
Perhaps the Israeli government doesn't routinely release English version of those statements etc?
Quote from: mongers on October 09, 2023, 06:26:30 AMQuote from: garbon on October 09, 2023, 05:44:17 AMHuman animals?
Translation issue?
I've seen several different versions of Israeli PM statements that differ quite a bit, so have not been sure enough to quote them here.
Perhaps the Israeli government doesn't routinely release English version of those statements etc?
Another translation I've seen is "barbarians".
Quote from: Josquius on October 09, 2023, 06:18:49 AMYou seriously think Taiwan and Ukraine being under threat of destruction from the major military power next door are remotely comparable to Palestine?
In the Israel /Palestine situation it's Israel who are the major military power with the ability to extinguish their smaller weaker neighbour.
Typically useful idiot style, interpreting selective facts and leaving out others to fit the wanted narrative. In this case completely ignoring Iran, Hezbollah and the rest of the complex Arab world... Not to mention Russia and all the useful idiots (that's you) and anti-semites all over the world.
So yes, in an isolated ideal world where there's nothing else but Israel and Gaza then Israel is very much the superior military power. In the real, far more complex, world Israel is balancing on a knife's edge. All it takes is another idiot US president and a drawn out Gaza conflict where Hamas can paint themselves as victims so that useful idiots (you again) can turn EU public will against them and their enemies will smell the blood in the water.
Quote from: Threviel on October 09, 2023, 06:42:28 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 09, 2023, 06:18:49 AMYou seriously think Taiwan and Ukraine being under threat of destruction from the major military power next door are remotely comparable to Palestine?
In the Israel /Palestine situation it's Israel who are the major military power with the ability to extinguish their smaller weaker neighbour.
Typically useful idiot style, interpreting selective facts and leaving out others to fit the wanted narrative. In this case completely ignoring Iran, Hezbollah and the rest of the complex Arab world... Not to mention Russia and all the useful idiots (that's you) and anti-semites all over the world.
So yes, in an isolated ideal world where there's nothing else but Israel and Gaza then Israel is very much the superior military power. In the real, far more complex, world Israel is balancing on a knife's edge. All it takes is another idiot US president and a drawn out Gaza conflict where Hamas can paint themselves as victims so that useful idiots (you again) can turn EU public will against them and their enemies will smell the blood in the water.
Who was the first?
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2023, 05:44:17 AMHuman animals?
Weird phrasing, wonder if something was lost in translation from Hebrew? Human animals in English is just "what we actually are." If you wanted to insult them you'd say they are "animals" without the human qualifier. Or call them savages, barbaric etc etc.
Quote from: Threviel on October 09, 2023, 06:42:28 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 09, 2023, 06:18:49 AMYou seriously think Taiwan and Ukraine being under threat of destruction from the major military power next door are remotely comparable to Palestine?
In the Israel /Palestine situation it's Israel who are the major military power with the ability to extinguish their smaller weaker neighbour.
Typically useful idiot style, interpreting selective facts and leaving out others to fit the wanted narrative. In this case completely ignoring Iran, Hezbollah and the rest of the complex Arab world... Not to mention Russia and all the useful idiots (that's you) and anti-semites all over the world.
So yes, in an isolated ideal world where there's nothing else but Israel and Gaza then Israel is very much the superior military power. In the real, far more complex, world Israel is balancing on a knife's edge. All it takes is another idiot US president and a drawn out Gaza conflict where Hamas can paint themselves as victims so that useful idiots (you again) can turn EU public will against them and their enemies will smell the blood in the water.
The useful idiots are those who uncontroversially back supporting Israel no matter what.
Huge cross over between those with this view and those who want to drop support for Ukraine and have a few bottles of vodka in their cuboard.
Typical useful idiot style is pretending it's still 1973 and shit like these attacks are in themselves a direct military threat to the very existence of Israel.
The Arab states are not about to attack Israel. That a formal agreement on this from one of the last hold outs was meant to be coming soon is likely key to why Hamas attacked.
Face it. The Palestinians are the underdogs here by some way.
This says nothing about right or wrong and morality or any of that - I'd much rather have Israel threatening me than Russia but it's a simple fact that the practical situation on the ground is totally different in Palestine to that in Taiwan or Ukraine.
Human animals makes sense to me in this context. They are human, yet display the characteristics of animals. If they were JUST animals, you could understand them, but they are not. They are human animals.
Interestingly in the North, some gunmen tried to infiltrate and were killed by IDF. Hezbollah has been taking credit for mortar attacks from Southern Lebanon aimed at Israel, but quickly denied the infiltrators were affiliated with them.
Seems like Hezbollah, at least for now, has a certain line it isn't willing to cross, at least not publicly.
IDF has now confirmed that it's striking Lebanon.
https://twitter.com/TOIAlerts/status/1711386881794228531
From Al Jazeera, sounds like IDF is definitely at least considering a ground invasion:
QuoteOur correspondent Charles Stratford reporting from the Israeli town of Netivot – some 3 km (1.86 miles) – away from Gaza, says there is a "massive build up" of troops at the southern border.
"Heavy weaponry is being brought into this area," he added. "You can see Armored Personnel Carriers – designed to bring troop infantry into battle. We have also seen tanks ... and self-propelled mobile artillery pieces and cannons."
"Israeli troops are being brought on trucks, what can only be described as specialised lightweight small vehicles, implying that some form of ground invasion was imminent," he reported.
Moreover, Stratford said there were continuous sorties being made by jet fighters flying towards Gaza "dropping their bombs, returning and going around again".
I have to say this is an incredibly "bad take" opinion, posted from Al Jazeera:
QuoteWestern leaders accused of hypocrisy over response to Palestine, Ukraine
Social media users, including journalists and observers, are calling out what they call a 'double standard'.
After Saturday's surprise attack by the Palestinian group Hamas on Israel, Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskyy took to the social media platform X to offer "condolences go out to everyone who lost relatives or close ones in the terrorist attack".
He also stated, "Israel's right to self-defence is unquestionable".
Many world leaders, including US President Joe Biden and UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, shared similar sentiments.
The President of the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, stated, "Israel has the right to defend itself – today and in the days to come. The European Union stands with Israel".
Accusations of western 'double standards'
Some social media users have criticised these statements, saying they highlight a double standard.
Ukraine's right to defend itself is praised by most international leaders while Russia's invasion is condemned, but commentators said the same cannot be said about Israel's 56-year occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
Aaron Bastani, a leftist British journalist, said on X that there's a "clear double standard in endorsing terrorism against civilian targets in Ukraine ... and condemning it by Palestinians".
Many users said Western diplomats and media support the Ukrainians who defend their land, but label the Palestinians fighting against Israel as "terrorists".
An illustration of a woman's face, in which one eye is closed beside a Palestinian flag, and one eye open beside a Ukrainian flag, has been regularly shared as a symbol of the West's alleged double standards in how the two conflicts are viewed.
Clips also emerged on social media from a CNN interview with Mustafa Barghouti, the general secretary of the Palestinian National Initiative, in which he posed the rhetorical question, "why the United States support Ukraine in fighting occupation? While here they support the occupier, who continues to occupy us".
An existing debate re-ignited
It is not the first time Western nations have been accused of double standards in their stance on the Ukraine war.
Earlier in the year, Amnesty published a report highlighting the West's "double standards" on global human rights.
Agnes Callamard, Amnesty's Amnesty secretary-general, told Al Jazeera at the time that the occupation of the Palestinians was a "particularly important one".
"Without making any comparison between Russia's aggression and Israel ... it is clear the Palestinian people are under a regime of oppression. A regime of occupation and a regime of apartheid," Callamard told Al Jazeera.
Over the last three days, X users recirculated earlier statements calling out what they called Western hypocrisy, sharing video by the Irish lawmaker Richard Boyd Barrett from March 2022 in which he berated the Irish government's double standards regarding Ukraine and Palestine.
"You're happy to use the most strong and robust language to describe the crimes against humanity of Vladimir Putin, but you will not use the same strength of language when it comes to describing Israel's treatment of the Palestinians".
Barrett on Sunday again called out what he called "shocking double standards of Western leaders supporting Ukraine resistance but condemning Palestinians."
Meanwhile, others warned against comparing conflicts.
And some cautioned that Hamas and Palestinians should not be seen as one and the same.
Ukrainian footballer Oleksandr Zinchenko, who plays for Arsenal, posted on Instagram stating he "stands with Israel".
Zinchenko has been a vocal supporter of his home country in its ongoing defence against Russia and participated in a Game4Ukraine charity match in London earlier this year to raise money for Ukraine.
After online backlash, with some questioning an alleged double standard in his support of Israel, the footballer removed the post and switched his social media account to private.
Several people claimed his football club, in not responding to Zinchenko's comments, were guilty of hypocrisy after they had distanced themselves from former player Mesut Ozil's comments in 2019 over alleged human rights abuses against Uighur Muslims in China.
FWIW, I am a huge supporter of Ukraine, but if they were conducting raids on Russian cities, kidnapping hundreds of Russian civilians to use as hostages, parading dead Russian women around for PR etc I would absolutely condemn them.
Ukraine is not doing that. Hamas is.
Russia has been funneling NATO weapons captured from Ukraine to Hamas so that they could blame Ukraine for arming Hamas. I can't even...
I am shocked, shocked, that people who hate Israel also hate Ukraine.
Quote from: Josquius on October 09, 2023, 07:43:35 AMThe useful idiots are those who uncontroversially back supporting Israel no matter what.
Huge cross over between those with this view and those who want to drop support for Ukraine and have a few bottles of vodka in their cuboard.
Is it? Corbyn is now supporting Israel?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2023, 09:58:27 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 09, 2023, 07:43:35 AMThe useful idiots are those who uncontroversially back supporting Israel no matter what.
Huge cross over between those with this view and those who want to drop support for Ukraine and have a few bottles of vodka in their cuboard.
Is it? Corbyn is now supporting Israel?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZIUClH2UxE
Although worth flagging that is according to Ukrainian military intelligence.
Quote from: Josquius on October 09, 2023, 10:01:10 AMQuote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2023, 09:58:27 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 09, 2023, 07:43:35 AMThe useful idiots are those who uncontroversially back supporting Israel no matter what.
Huge cross over between those with this view and those who want to drop support for Ukraine and have a few bottles of vodka in their cuboard.
Is it? Corbyn is now supporting Israel?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZIUClH2UxE
So is that yes? Corbyn is now supporting Israel?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2023, 10:06:45 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 09, 2023, 10:01:10 AMQuote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2023, 09:58:27 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 09, 2023, 07:43:35 AMThe useful idiots are those who uncontroversially back supporting Israel no matter what.
Huge cross over between those with this view and those who want to drop support for Ukraine and have a few bottles of vodka in their cuboard.
Is it? Corbyn is now supporting Israel?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZIUClH2UxE
So is that yes? Corbyn is now supporting Israel?
Fascinating that you're so obsessed with one nutty old independent MP in the UK rather than one of the two main parties in the world's super power, the place where you live.
I don't support the Republicans. Corbyn on the other hand ran the Labour party during it's anti-Semitic phase and has "friends" in Hamas.
Also Ynet is reporting that the head of Egyptian intelligence warned Netanyahu ten days before the attack that "something unusual, a terrible operation" was about to take place around Gaza and this was dismissed by Netanyahu who, reportedly, said that the IDF was focused on fighting terror in the West Bank where attacks were actively being carried out.
Netanyahu's office has called the report "a lie".
Again I think the mood of national unity is going to be short-lived. It will be political very quickly (in a way I think this is possibly, like the protests, a sign of the health of Israeli democracy despite all the concerning stuff). We've already seen Haaretz explicitly blame Netanyahu. I don't think this will be the end of reports about how and why the focus was on the West Bank. At the same time Netanyahu and his coalition were attacking the security apparatus as being infected by the left because of Shin Bet, Mossad etc leaders saying the divisions over judicial reforms were weakening Israeli society and security - they were not just causing the protests but also reservists refusing call ups. I think the coalition will return to that line of attack.
I suspect this means we might not see a national unity government - in practical terms I think this war will be prosecuted by what, reportedly, Netanyahu considers to be a dysfunctional security cabinet which includes extremists on the far right. I think that is concerning. I also think Israeli politics will be very combustible as these types of stories come forward. From the outside I can't see how Netanyahu can survive, but I think we've all thought that before - but I think this may entrench further and deeper which is not good either.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2023, 10:18:50 AMAlso Ynet is reporting that the head of Egyptian intelligence warned Netanyahu ten days before the attack that "something unusual, a terrible operation" was about to take place around Gaza and this was dismissed by Netanyahu who, reportedly, said that the IDF was focused on fighting terror in the West Bank where attacks were actively being carried out.
Netanyahu's office has called the report "a lie".
Again I think the mood of national unity is going to be short-lived. It will be political very quickly (in a way I think this is possibly, like the protests, a sign of the health of Israeli democracy despite all the concerning stuff). We've already seen Haaretz explicitly blame Netanyahu. I don't think this will be the end of reports about how and why the focus was on the West Bank. At the same time Netanyahu and his coalition were attacking the security apparatus as being infected by the left because of Shin Bet, Mossad etc leaders saying the divisions over judicial reforms were weakening Israeli society and security - they were not just causing the protests but also reservists refusing call ups. I think the coalition will return to that line of attack.
I suspect this means we might not see a national unity government - in practical terms I think this war will be prosecuted by what, reportedly, Netanyahu considers to be a dysfunctional security cabinet which includes extremists on the far right. I think that is concerning. I also think Israeli politics will be very combustible as these types of stories come forward. From the outside I can't see how Netanyahu can survive, but I think we've all thought that before - but I think this may entrench further and deeper which is not good either.
I wonder how deep the "They let this happen for political gain" theories will bite.
Traditional conspiracy fodder...but this time with evidence as crazy as it may be,
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2023, 10:14:12 AMI don't support the Republicans.
Huh. Thats a surprise.
QuoteCorbyn on the other hand ran the Labour party during it's anti-Semitic phase and has "friends" in Hamas.
And is an irrelevancy today. Yet seems to be living in your head for some reason unlike the very real threat that is the pro-Israel, pro-Russia folks who might be ruling over you come 2025.
But sure. Keep obsessing about powerless tankies in foreign lands.
None of those people will rule over me.
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2023, 05:44:17 AMHuman animals?
Dehumanizing those you are about to murder is the long standing first play. You can see how effective the tactic is by reading some of the posts in this thread.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2023, 10:18:50 AMAlso Ynet is reporting that the head of Egyptian intelligence warned Netanyahu ten days before the attack that "something unusual, a terrible operation" was about to take place around Gaza and this was dismissed by Netanyahu who, reportedly, said that the IDF was focused on fighting terror in the West Bank where attacks were actively being carried out.
Netanyahu's office has called the report "a lie".
Again I think the mood of national unity is going to be short-lived. It will be political very quickly (in a way I think this is possibly, like the protests, a sign of the health of Israeli democracy despite all the concerning stuff). We've already seen Haaretz explicitly blame Netanyahu. I don't think this will be the end of reports about how and why the focus was on the West Bank. At the same time Netanyahu and his coalition were attacking the security apparatus as being infected by the left because of Shin Bet, Mossad etc leaders saying the divisions over judicial reforms were weakening Israeli society and security - they were not just causing the protests but also reservists refusing call ups. I think the coalition will return to that line of attack.
I suspect this means we might not see a national unity government - in practical terms I think this war will be prosecuted by what, reportedly, Netanyahu considers to be a dysfunctional security cabinet which includes extremists on the far right. I think that is concerning. I also think Israeli politics will be very combustible as these types of stories come forward. From the outside I can't see how Netanyahu can survive, but I think we've all thought that before - but I think this may entrench further and deeper which is not good either.
Oof, but I disagree with your conclusions. Netanyahu will find a negligent subordinate to blame and will question the loyalty to the state of Israel if any calls for his removal.
Lots of people are going to be willing to look past the blunders and atrocities he going to commit.
Just read the cheering section he has in this thread to gauge the support he will have at home.
Even JR is willing to give a blank cheque to him in the name of retribution.
That strategy has been disastrous for both the US in the past. But it seems humanity is not capable of anything more than that base response.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2023, 10:21:04 AMNone of those people will rule over me.
I hope you're right.
But their colleagues sort of already are. Didn't the recent funding tranche for Ukraine fall through because of them?
On the subject of translations of what the Israeli PM has said, this offical page might be useful, though I don't think it will carry everything said to journalists for instance:
https://www.gov.il/en/departments/prime_ministers_office/govil-landing-page (https://www.gov.il/en/departments/prime_ministers_office/govil-landing-page)
QuoteCorrection:Statement by PM Netanyahu
Government
The 37th Government
Publish Date
07.10.2023
Updated date
08.10.2023
Correction:Statement by PM Netanyahu
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this evening, at the Kirya in Tel Aviv:
"Dear citizens of Israel,
This morning, on Shabbat and a holiday, Hamas invaded Israeli territory and murdered innocent citizens including children and the elderly. Hamas has started a brutal and evil war.
We will be victorious in this war despite an unbearable price. This is a very difficult day for all of us.
Hamas wants to murder us all. This is an enemy that murders children and mothers in their homes, in their beds, an enemy that abducts the elderly, children and young women, that slaughters and massacres our citizens, including children, who simply went out to enjoy the holiday.
What happened today is unprecedented in Israel – and I will see to it that it does not happen again. The entire government is behind this decision.
The IDF will immediately use all its strength to destroy Hamas's capabilities. We will destroy them and we will forcefully avenge this dark day that they have forced on the State of Israel and its citizens. As Bialik wrote (https://allpoetry.com/On-The-Slaughter): 'Revenge for the blood of a little child has yet been devised by Satan'.
All of the places which Hamas is deployed, hiding and operating in, that wicked city, we will turn them into rubble.
I say to the residents of Gaza: Leave now because we will operate forcefully everywhere.
At this hour, the IDF is clearing the terrorists out of the last communities. They are going community by community, house by house, and are restoring our control.
I embrace and send heartfelt condolences to the bereaved families whose loved ones were murdered today in cold blood and endless brutality.
We are all praying for the well-being of the wounded and all those who are being held hostage. I say to Hamas: You are responsible for their well-being. Israel will settle accounts with anyone who harms one hair on their heads.
I appeal to the residents of the south: We all stand alongside you. We are all proud of your heroism and your fighting.
To our beloved IDF soldiers, police officers and security forces personnel, remember that you are the continuation of the heroes of the Jewish people, of Joshua, Judah Maccabee and the heroes of 1948 and of all of Israel's wars. You are now fighting for the home and future of us all. We are all with you. We all love you. We all salute you.
To the medical and rescue teams, and the many volunteers who came out in force today in a long list of places, the people of Israel salute you. With your spirit, we will overcome our enemies.
Today, I spoke with US President Biden and with other world leaders in order to ensure freedom of action for Israel in the continuation of the campaign. I thank President Biden for his strong and clear words (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/10/07/statement-from-president-joe-biden-condemning-terrorist-attacks-in-israel/). I thank the President of France, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and many other leaders for their unreserved support for Israel.
I now appeal to all citizens of Israel.
We stand together in this campaign.
This war will take time. It will be difficult. Challenging days are ahead of us. However, I can promise one thing: With the help of G-d, the forces that we all have in common and our faith in the Eternal One of Israel, we will win."
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2023, 11:02:34 AMOof, but I disagree with your conclusions. Netanyahu will find a negligent subordinate to blame and will question the loyalty to the state of Israel if any calls for his removal.
I think the problem with holding Netanyahu accountable, is the brutality of the Hamas attacks and the level of outrage they spark, it will help "paper over" a lot of Netanyahu's troubles. This sort of environment is really the "perfect storm" of benefit for Israel's far right to be able to get away with things they have always wanted.
I do not know what the "human animals" phrase means either. Most animals are not capable of the kind of willful cruelty and viciousness exhibited by the Hamas Einsatzgruppen. Sadly only human beings seem capable of such degradation.
FWIW I did say I wonder if "Human animals" is a problem of translation from Hebrew.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 09, 2023, 11:13:11 AMFWIW I did say I wonder if "Human animals" is a problem of translation from Hebrew.
I've seen "animals", "savages" and "barbarians" so I think that's probably right.
QuoteIsraeli military announces launch of largest airstrikes on Hamas in Gaza
The Israeli military announces it will carry out one of the largest airstrikes ever against Hamas in the besieged Gaza Strip.
Israeli media also reported that Israel has hit 1000 targets in Gaza, adding that the military has announced it will continue airstrikes on Gaza, even if at the cost of harming Israeli captives in the enclave.
The brutality of it is, if you're going to prosecute a war here the 150 (or w/e the number is) of hostages have to just be considered KIA. You can either prosecute a war or you can worry about getting them home, you can't realistically do both. I'm sure Israel will try to rescue any that they conceivably can, but the reality is the opportunity to do so will be unlikely.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 09, 2023, 11:21:58 AMQuoteIsraeli military announces launch of largest airstrikes on Hamas in Gaza
The Israeli military announces it will carry out one of the largest airstrikes ever against Hamas in the besieged Gaza Strip.
Israeli media also reported that Israel has hit 1000 targets in Gaza, adding that the military has announced it will continue airstrikes on Gaza, even if at the cost of harming Israeli captives in the enclave.
The brutality of it is, if you're going to prosecute a war here the 150 (or w/e the number is) of hostages have to just be considered KIA. You can either prosecute a war or you can worry about getting them home, you can't realistically do both. I'm sure Israel will try to rescue any that they conceivably can, but the reality is the opportunity to do so will be unlikely.
Yeah, I think at this point you should assume all the hostages in Gaza are as good as dead. If any can be rescued all well and good, but best not to keep your hopes up on that front. The only complicating factor here would be the foreign hostages being kept - this may be a restraining factor on Israeli actions against Gaza.
Quote from: PJL on October 09, 2023, 11:40:12 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 09, 2023, 11:21:58 AMQuoteIsraeli military announces launch of largest airstrikes on Hamas in Gaza
The Israeli military announces it will carry out one of the largest airstrikes ever against Hamas in the besieged Gaza Strip.
Israeli media also reported that Israel has hit 1000 targets in Gaza, adding that the military has announced it will continue airstrikes on Gaza, even if at the cost of harming Israeli captives in the enclave.
The brutality of it is, if you're going to prosecute a war here the 150 (or w/e the number is) of hostages have to just be considered KIA. You can either prosecute a war or you can worry about getting them home, you can't realistically do both. I'm sure Israel will try to rescue any that they conceivably can, but the reality is the opportunity to do so will be unlikely.
Yeah, I think at this point you should assume all the hostages in Gaza are as good as dead. If any can be rescued all well and good, but best not to keep your hopes up on that front. The only complicating factor here would be the foreign hostages being kept - this may be a restraining factor on Israeli actions against Gaza.
I doubt it, at this stage I think what Otto said is right, even for foreign governments.
The only hope for the hostages is if the Qataris can pull something out of the hat and quickly, within the next few days. And I don't think that's likely.
Like once you've shifted to a declared war I think hostages are just viewed in a different way. Like imagine the Germans took 150 civilian hostages after the Allies landed at Normandy, would that have changed Allied war planning one iota? No. Because in a war you can't subject your plans to the enemy's desires. I think the hostages indicate Hamas thought the Israeli response would be more limited as it has been in the past, which I think may end up proving to be a miscalculation.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2023, 10:18:50 AMAlso Ynet is reporting that the head of Egyptian intelligence warned Netanyahu ten days before the attack that "something unusual, a terrible operation" was about to take place around Gaza and this was dismissed by Netanyahu who, reportedly, said that the IDF was focused on fighting terror in the West Bank where attacks were actively being carried out.
Netanyahu's office has called the report "a lie".
Again I think the mood of national unity is going to be short-lived.
Yeah the accusation by several Israelis on twitter is that the bulk of the IDF forces that normally would be close to Gaza were deployed to the West Bank to keep that settler party in his coalition happy. :hmm:
Netanyahu has shown himself to be completely incompetent. The super high-tech fence was first blinded by drones dropping grenades on the observation towers then systematically demolished in over a couple dozen places and there were no deployed formations on hand to quickly respond once the border guards were overwhelmed. Just overall a monumental fuckup.
QuoteQassam Brigades threatens to execute Israeli captives
Hamas's Qassam Brigades has threatened to execute Israeli captives if Israel continues to bombard and kill civilians in Gaza.
"Any targeting of innocent civilians without warning will be met regretfully by executing one of the captives in our custody, and we will be forced to broadcast this execution," said Abu Obeida, a spokesman for Hamas' Qassam Brigades.
"We regret this decision but we hold the Zionist enemy and their leadership the responsibility for this," he said.
IMO when this happens it is a nail in the coffin for any chance Hamas has in the PR battle, this will make Hamas basically "ISIS" in the minds of most Western media etc, and give Israel virtual carte-blanche to do whatever the fuck it wants in Gaza.
Quote from: Josquius on October 09, 2023, 11:06:35 AMQuote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2023, 10:21:04 AMNone of those people will rule over me.
I hope you're right.
But their colleagues sort of already are. Didn't the recent funding tranche for Ukraine fall through because of them?
Yeah, but that appears to be temporary. American leftists don't automatically hate Israel. Biden is all about giving more aid to Israel.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 09, 2023, 12:02:53 PMIMO when this happens it is a nail in the coffin for any chance Hamas has in the PR battle, this will make Hamas basically "ISIS" in the minds of most Western media etc, and give Israel virtual carte-blanche to do whatever the fuck it wants in Gaza.
The gang rape and beheading tiktoks they uploaded really put a damper on the PR effort.
Gaza should at least get the Mosul treatment since that's how they want to play.
I mean I think that's basically happening.
I think the traditional powers of restraint are already at all time lows, not just because of what is happening here but just the overall state of the world and various conflicts already ongoing etc. I think entities that may try to mediate or restrain Israel are just too enervated to do so.
My guess is the U.S. won't want to cross that line, since it never has before in this conflict--but I will note ISIS's hostage executions were probably the single deciding factor in the U.S. deciding to actively join the war against ISIS. I really think if they go down this path we're going to see the end of Gazan self rule.
I think if anyone (including Hamas) thinks Hamas will be in political control of Gaza after this, they are mistaken. I can't see how this doesn't end up with an Israeli military occupation, probably funded with American money. Hamas will still remain as a terrorist organisation but they will not have the levers of power in the area.
Ideally the occupation would become a UN mandated one, but I can't see that happening. As far as the West are concerned they should make sure the conflict is limited to Israeli borders (Gaza, West Bank, S Lebanon).
I think a major concern for the Western powers is this could expand to involve Hezbollah and even Iran. I think that is what the leaders of US / UK / Germany / France are supposedly meeting about.
A wider war seems imminent:
QuoteIf Hezbollah joins the war, the IDF will completely destroy Damascus and will directly target the Iran-backed Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Moreover, US warships will support Israel in this war. This message was delivered by Israel via France.
Isn't there a decent danger, that if the war moves from a localized Israel-Gaza fight, to a more general conflict between Israel, Gaza, Hezbollah/Lebanon/Iran...it will be a lot harder for the other area governments (Jordan, Saudi) to just sit quiet. I imagine even if the rulers would try to keep thing practical, their population may well not.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 09, 2023, 11:09:46 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2023, 11:02:34 AMOof, but I disagree with your conclusions. Netanyahu will find a negligent subordinate to blame and will question the loyalty to the state of Israel if any calls for his removal.
I think the problem with holding Netanyahu accountable, is the brutality of the Hamas attacks and the level of outrage they spark, it will help "paper over" a lot of Netanyahu's troubles. This sort of environment is really the "perfect storm" of benefit for Israel's far right to be able to get away with things they have always wanted.
Exactly so
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2023, 12:09:19 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 09, 2023, 11:06:35 AMQuote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2023, 10:21:04 AMNone of those people will rule over me.
I hope you're right.
But their colleagues sort of already are. Didn't the recent funding tranche for Ukraine fall through because of them?
Yeah, but that appears to be temporary. American leftists don't automatically hate Israel. Biden is all about giving more aid to Israel.
FYI most leftists don't automatically hate Israel.
Even for tankies I believe you might have cause and effect back to front.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 09, 2023, 01:03:32 PMA wider war seems imminent:
QuoteIf Hezbollah joins the war, the IDF will completely destroy Damascus and will directly target tIran-backed Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Moreover, US warships will support Israel in this war. This message was delivered by Israel via France.
That's all Lebanon needs right now. Since the financial crisis they've been a mess. That port explosion absolutely shattered them.
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 09, 2023, 01:10:31 PMIsn't there a decent danger, that if the war moves from a localized Israel-Gaza fight, to a more general conflict between Israel, Gaza, Hezbollah/Lebanon/Iran...it will be a lot harder for the other area governments (Jordan, Saudi) to just sit quiet. I imagine even if the rulers would try to keep thing practical, their population may well not.
I can't see Saudi Arabia fighting a war against Israel allied with Iran. Like we're nightmare scenario with talk like that, because you would see like a Vietnam War era U.S. military involvement in that sort of war, like widespread and years long war with America/Israel vs Iran / Saudi / Jordan etc. Aside from Iran most of these countries enjoy robust security and trade relationships with the United States. They will keep their people in line and avoid a war where they are siding with Iran against the West.
Quote~
MILITARY & STRATEGIC:
IS THIS WORLD WAR 3?
I have been asked that four times in two days.
The answer is no, not yet.
World War 2 only became that in late 1941. When Japan attacked America, and Germany declared war on the United States (a bizarre act that few even in Germany really understood), in December 1941. By then the war in Europe had been going on since September 1939.
In one of my very early posts I commented on the fact that world wars spread relatively slowly. They sort of creep up because they cause a fundamental series of movements on the geo-political chess board.
Those movements allow others to see if the attention of enemies they would not wish to fight openly, have been so successfully distracted - or even taken out of the game, that others can move. They can take risks they wouldn't otherwise have considered.
The defeat of France left its Far Eastern colonies in modern Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos completely exposed. Japan quickly took advantage, taking them over with the acquiescence of the Vichy government.
Now we have N.Korea involving itself in the Ukraine war - because it can harm its arch-enemy, the US, by sending weapons to fight against an American proxy army as they see it. And they're getting paid, probably in hard currency like Yuan, technology and oil. Russia is possibly even supplying the raw materials for the DPRK to manufacture weapons for it. With unlimited slave labour it's the perfect weapons factory from a Russian perspective.
So with the DPRK involved that makes it more global than it was. China wrapped up in civil financial crisis and military command purges however, seems unlikely to test the waters of a Taiwan invasion. That would indeed say, a World War has begun.
There seems no doubt that the Iranians have used the Russians.
They had something Russia wanted - drones and missiles, and in part exchange they obtained Russian acquiescence in rattling Israel as part of the deal. This served Russia practically. It doesn't want Kyiv getting Iron Dome - and over time that's become more likely. Now with its missiles and systems in full use Israel is never going to get around to supplying one to Kyiv.
Now forget the horror and the drama of the last few days and think only of the outcome. Only outcomes matter. Gaza is going to be obliterated. Two million people are going to face depravations and death because of what Hamas has done. It's going to be a tragedy. Israel doesn't need vast amounts of western aid, but we have to show willing because nobody in their right mind gets on the wrong side of the Israelis or doesn't show support, it's political suicide to do nothing even when nothing needs doing. If Iranian backed Hezbollah in Lebanon- a force loathed by the native Lebanese - starts to seriously attack Israel with Iranian backing, then the USS Gerald R Ford on its first active deployment will find itself in combat alongside the Israelis. Iran doesn't want a war on that scale because it could all too easily get out of hand and I think they know it will end badly for them. The Russians are hardly in a position to offer any support. But if it distracts America, rattles Israel and dislodges the Americans from Syria - their position will be almost untenable - Iran will be pleased with itself. Russia will smile as the American focus moves off of Ukraine. The Jewish lobby in the US is vast and it's an election run up. No US politician worth his salt is forgetting that.
These aren't conflicts of conquest, they're wars of religion, ideology, hate and influence. They do it because they think they should. Everyone else in the Middle East will sit back and hope to God it doesn't spill over.
If it spreads it will be into Lebanon and Syria. The power vacuum in Syria has never been resolved.
Iran wants it done with and to cement its position, and that suits the Russians and their military bases on the coast. Israel will never permit Iran a permanent presence in Syria on its borders. It barely tolerates Hezbollah in Lebanon.
It all depends now on how much Iran can control its proxies and how far it's willing to let them go.
Russia has been supplying captured western weapons to Iran for use by Hamas, just to stir the pot even more.
Questions will have to be asked about how they got there. Israel controls the land sea and air borders to Gaza - bar one the Egyptians manage. No guesses as to who needs to answer some awkward questions.
The primary end to this is that Gaza will be reduced to rubble, its people will get no aid and everyone will ignore the tragedy because of what Hamas did to, and are doing to Israelis and the hostages they've taken - including terrified children.
The only question now is what happens on the Golan Heights and how far does Hezbollah go in goading the Israelis from
Lebanon?
Iran may find that emotions get the better of its proxies and drag it in to something it doesn't really want. Especially if Hezbollah reacts violently to the inevitable carnage to come in Gaza.
You can't help but wonder who the idiot in Tehran that thought this up is? Did they really think it would be so simple? That they wouldn't poke a dragon that's been desperate for a fight to distract Israelis from the anti-democratic agenda they've been pushing at home? This has played into Netanyahu's hands like nothing else ever could.
This is a shit storm, have no doubt about that. But it's a long way from WW3. However the more you see the more you realise Putin's fingers are in this pie even if direct involvement is his last intention.
America and the west have another challenge to rise to. Oil prices will spike and guess who profits from that-
Moscow and Tehran. Great Power Games. They never end.
Quote from: Josquius on October 09, 2023, 01:27:01 PM"World War 2 only became that in late 1941. When Japan attacked America, and Germany declared war on the United States"
Ah yes, WW1 1917-1918.
QuoteHamas is open to discussions over a possible truce with Israel, having "achieved its targets", a senior official has said.
Moussa Abu Marzouk told Al Jazeera in a phone interview that Hamas was open to "something of that sort" and "all political dialogues" when asked whether the group is willing to discuss a possible ceasefire.
He also said that Hamas had captured 'tens' of dual-citizens from Israel, including those with Russian and Chinese citizenship.
This combined with the threat to execute hostages makes me think Hamas may actually be shitting its pants right now. I never like to assume people are fully stupid; but it is starting to look like Hamas really thought this would be just the same old tit for tat minor bombing response and then some sort of public hostage negotiation. I think they are starting to realize this is rapidly going to be a battle for survival.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 09, 2023, 01:30:11 PMQuoteHamas is open to discussions over a possible truce with Israel, having "achieved its targets", a senior official has said.
Moussa Abu Marzouk told Al Jazeera in a phone interview that Hamas was open to "something of that sort" and "all political dialogues" when asked whether the group is willing to discuss a possible ceasefire.
He also said that Hamas had captured 'tens' of dual-citizens from Israel, including those with Russian and Chinese citizenship.
This combined with the threat to execute hostages makes me think Hamas may actually be shitting its pants right now. I never like to assume people are fully stupid; but it is starting to look like Hamas really thought this would be just the same old tit for tat minor bombing response and then some sort of public hostage negotiation. I think they are starting to realize this is rapidly going to be a battle for survival.
You mean that the senior leaders are about to get the martyrdom they always preached about and suddenly they have cold feet?
Not sure what that long stream of consciousness Josq posted was, but I remain highly skeptical Putin was meaningfully involved in any of this. Iran, yes.
And while there is a risk of escalation to involve Hezbollah, it is another jump from that to directly involving Iran--one that Iran could very likely be backed down from with a strong warning from the West. Again, not certain--the risk of this ballooning into a large general war is not zero. That means it is worth talking about and worrying about, but the trajectory for that doesn't seem to be there to me.
Quote from: The Brain on October 09, 2023, 01:28:55 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 09, 2023, 01:27:01 PM"World War 2 only became that in late 1941. When Japan attacked America, and Germany declared war on the United States"
Ah yes, WW1 1917-1918.
Yeah that bit was bizare for sure
Never heard that. Far more common is knocking back the start date for the Japanese invasion of China.
Or maybe he just means what it was known As at the time? We now know it was ww2 in 1939 but did they?
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 09, 2023, 01:31:32 PMYou mean that the senior leaders are about to get the martyrdom they always preached about and suddenly they have cold feet?
Israel's been assasinating senior Hamas leaders for many years. I think that's a professional risk they accept.
Agree on Putin. I think it could opportunistically get Hezbollah involved and - possibly - inspire some form of intifada on the West Bank. Which would possibly be challenging enough for the IDF. But as you say I doubt it'll extend to other states.
My biggest concern re Putin / Russia is that they could use the distraction in Israel to pull a stunt against Ukraine / Moldova.
Israel isn't going to destroy Hamas. Hamas will live on the hearts of every child that believe Jews are descended from pigs and apes.
Just very recently Putin was busy groveling to North Korea for artillery shells. He had nothing to do with this.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2023, 01:53:58 PMIsrael isn't going to destroy Hamas. Hamas will live on the hearts of every child that believe Jews are descended from pigs and apes.
?
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 09, 2023, 02:13:33 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2023, 01:53:58 PMIsrael isn't going to destroy Hamas. Hamas will live on the hearts of every child that believe Jews are descended from pigs and apes.
?
Raz and Josq were frenzying each other into more and more radical stances on either end of this earlier. It's the wind-down of that.
He missed an in.
I see. Not much of a wind-down considering how insane a take it is, though. Jesus Christ.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2023, 01:53:58 PMIsrael isn't going to destroy Hamas. Hamas will live on the hearts of every child that believe Jews are descended from pigs and apes.
Go fuck yourself.
Quote from: The Brain on October 09, 2023, 01:28:55 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 09, 2023, 01:27:01 PM"World War 2 only became that in late 1941. When Japan attacked America, and Germany declared war on the United States"
Ah yes, WW1 1917-1918.
:lol: Uh, no.
Point of order Jews are descended from apes? (Or technically are part of the Great Ape family)
Quote from: Josquius on October 09, 2023, 01:35:27 PMQuote from: The Brain on October 09, 2023, 01:28:55 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 09, 2023, 01:27:01 PM"World War 2 only became that in late 1941. When Japan attacked America, and Germany declared war on the United States"
Ah yes, WW1 1917-1918.
Yeah that bit was bizare for sure
Never heard that. Far more common is knocking back the start date for the Japanese invasion of China.
Or maybe he just means what it was known As at the time? We now know it was ww2 in 1939 but did they?
The point being made was that it was not a "world war" by most standards until it spread to the Pacific. Before that the war in Europe and the war in East Asia were separate.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 09, 2023, 01:31:32 PMYou mean that the senior leaders are about to get the martyrdom they always preached about and suddenly they have cold feet?
Should be easy for the senior Hamas leadership to make these sort of pronouncements on Al Jazeera. All they have to do is nip across the street in Doha. :hmm: They're a pet project of Quatar.
Times of Israel is reporting that a source has indicated Netanyahu told Biden a ground invasion is "inevitable."
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 09, 2023, 12:35:39 PMI think a major concern for the Western powers is this could expand to involve Hezbollah and even Iran. I think that is what the leaders of US / UK / Germany / France are supposedly meeting about.
Western European countries have the additional issue of having lots of muslims in their cities. And as ISIS showed: a lot of them are willing to kill, and a lot are willing to accommodate the first group.
Expect terror alert warning to go up a few notches
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2023, 10:18:30 PMThe merits or lack thereof of the various sides and factions in and outside of Israel are not really pertinent at this point.
I disagree about your introduction.
Israel has every right to defend itself. It has no choice but to do so. We are in agreement.
But the constant colonization had to stop. You recognized it yourself that Israel lost its soul, at some point.
This is the result: constant warfare.
Israel colonizes and humiliates Palestinians. Fence, blocus, bombardment and military incursion do not prevent Hamas from rearming and recruiting new "soldiers".
Hamas strikes again at Israel.
Rince & repeat.
It has to stop. Hamas will not stop by itself. Hamas will not talk about of peace. Fatah might be willing to if Israel gives some territory back to create a viable Palestinian state. But when the State keeps colonies pushing while it talks of peace is not really credible.
And is the Israeli society willing to accept that kind of peace? A good third of the population is unwilling to. About the same proportion of Palestinians who seem to support the more radical agenda of the Hamas.
I do not think there is a genuine interest from the current government to make any kind of peace with the Palestinians, or grant them any kind of territory. They want them gone, plain and simple, especially after this week-end.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 09, 2023, 02:56:20 PMWestern European countries have the additional issue of having lots of muslims in their cities. And as ISIS showed: a lot of them are willing to kill, and a lot are willing to accommodate the first group.
Expect terror alert warning to go up a few notches
"A lot" is relative. There's roughly 1 billion Muslims in the world. 100 killers is a small percentage. There's a lot more Christian killers in the US per year than that. Good boys that go to Church every Sunday.
QuoteThere are some 1,500 bodies of Palestinian terrorists in Israeli territory, Channel 13 news reports, without citing a source.
The Israel Defense Forces has estimated it has killed hundreds of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad gunmen who infiltrated Israel since Saturday morning.
On the Gaza side, at least 687 people have been killed after Israel launched air strikes on the Palestinian enclave in response.
If true this would be a sign of just how crazily large the incursion was.
Quote from: viper37 on October 09, 2023, 03:41:08 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2023, 10:18:30 PMThe merits or lack thereof of the various sides and factions in and outside of Israel are not really pertinent at this point.
I disagree about your introduction.
Israel has every right to defend itself. It has no choice but to do so. We are in agreement.
But the constant colonization had to stop. You recognized it yourself that Israel lost its soul, at some point.
This is the result: constant warfare.
Israel colonizes and humiliates Palestinians. Fence, blocus, bombardment and military incursion do not prevent Hamas from rearming and recruiting new "soldiers".
Hamas strikes again at Israel.
Rince & repeat.
It has to stop. Hamas will not stop by itself. Hamas will not talk about of peace. Fatah might be willing to if Israel gives some territory back to create a viable Palestinian state. But when the State keeps colonies pushing while it talks of peace is not really credible.
And is the Israeli society willing to accept that kind of peace? A good third of the population is unwilling to. About the same proportion of Palestinians who seem to support the more radical agenda of the Hamas.
I do not think there is a genuine interest from the current government to make any kind of peace with the Palestinians, or grant them any kind of territory. They want them gone, plain and simple, especially after this week-end.
Curiously, the one area where Israel did in fact stop 'colonising' was in Gaza, and it's the one area that has given it the most grief. So that's not the issue. And arguably what may happen now (hopefully) is probably the best chance of stopping the pre-war situation, through another military occupation. Not nice for the people living there, but I suspect will actually be a bit better for them then living under Hamas rule.
QuoteBut the constant colonization had to stop.
Jews are the natives of an Israel. Arab Muslims are the colonizers.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 09, 2023, 04:10:21 PMQuoteBut the constant colonization had to stop.
Jews are the natives of an Israel. Arab Muslims are the colonizers.
Come on.
Are you saying the US has claim to Europe since that's where a majority of its people's ancestors come from?
Youre comparing events from nearly 2 millenia ago vs. Those ongoing today.
Bro we don't want Europe. Bunch of declining populations filled with old white lefties and exploding populations of unassimilated Muslims.
I'd let Greece in though just for the vacations.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 09, 2023, 04:28:27 PMBro we don't want Europe. Bunch of declining populations filled with old white lefties and exploding populations of unassimilated Muslims.
I'd let Greece in though just for the vacations.
If its done the Israeli way the Europeans are pretty irrelevant.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 09, 2023, 03:48:46 PMQuoteThere are some 1,500 bodies of Palestinian terrorists in Israeli territory, Channel 13 news reports, without citing a source.
The Israel Defense Forces has estimated it has killed hundreds of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad gunmen who infiltrated Israel since Saturday morning.
On the Gaza side, at least 687 people have been killed after Israel launched air strikes on the Palestinian enclave in response.
If true this would be a sign of just how crazily large the incursion was.
I heard say that sources mentioned 1,000 attackers, a number Hamas also put out. So that 1,600 killed is believable.
Also in the videos from the border break-ins there were plenty of unarmed civilians running through into Israeli, some just seemed to go to see what was on the other side, I'm guessing other's went exploring/looting and other's probably became involved in some of the kidnappings, ad hoc or planned.
Given they were entering a war zone, I'd not be surprised if hundreds of those were also killed.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 09, 2023, 02:41:40 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2023, 01:53:58 PMIsrael isn't going to destroy Hamas. Hamas will live on the hearts of every child that believe Jews are descended from pigs and apes.
Go fuck yourself.
Hami, Raz's 'point' and POV is supporting Israeli.
Quote from: viper37 on October 09, 2023, 03:42:23 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 09, 2023, 02:56:20 PMWestern European countries have the additional issue of having lots of muslims in their cities. And as ISIS showed: a lot of them are willing to kill, and a lot are willing to accommodate the first group.
Expect terror alert warning to go up a few notches
"A lot" is relative. There's roughly 1 billion Muslims in the world. 100 killers is a small percentage. There's a lot more Christian killers in the US per year than that. Good boys that go to Church every Sunday.
a small percentage of none would be better.
Quotea small percentage of none would be better.
Ultron has realised the way to stop all crime is to simply wipe out all humans.
Quote from: mongers on October 09, 2023, 04:32:18 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 09, 2023, 03:48:46 PMQuoteThere are some 1,500 bodies of Palestinian terrorists in Israeli territory, Channel 13 news reports, without citing a source.
The Israel Defense Forces has estimated it has killed hundreds of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad gunmen who infiltrated Israel since Saturday morning.
On the Gaza side, at least 687 people have been killed after Israel launched air strikes on the Palestinian enclave in response.
If true this would be a sign of just how crazily large the incursion was.
I heard say that sources mentioned 1,000 attackers, a number Hamas also put out. So that 1,600 killed is believable.
Also in the videos from the border break-ins there were plenty of unarmed civilians running through into Israeli, some just seemed to go to see what was on the other side, I'm guessing other's went exploring/looting and other's probably became involved in some of the kidnappings, ad hoc or planned.
Given they were entering a war zone, I'd not be surprised if hundreds of those were also killed.
From all I've heard of life in Gaza can't say I blame those who used this as an excuse for a prison break.
Fingers crossed Israel doesn't conflate them with the killers too much and get overly trigger happy.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 09, 2023, 04:34:03 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 09, 2023, 03:42:23 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 09, 2023, 02:56:20 PMWestern European countries have the additional issue of having lots of muslims in their cities. And as ISIS showed: a lot of them are willing to kill, and a lot are willing to accommodate the first group.
Expect terror alert warning to go up a few notches
"A lot" is relative. There's roughly 1 billion Muslims in the world. 100 killers is a small percentage. There's a lot more Christian killers in the US per year than that. Good boys that go to Church every Sunday.
a small percentage of none would be better.
Can someone just lift the arm from the platter and place the stylus back in it's cradle, the click-click sound is getting annoying.
This thread is giving me Old Languish vibes.
Quote from: Maladict on October 09, 2023, 04:49:28 PMThis thread is giving me Old Languish vibes.
:yes:
Some people are also bringing their baggage along too.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 09, 2023, 04:10:21 PMQuoteBut the constant colonization had to stop.
Jews are the natives of an Israel. Arab Muslims are the colonizers.
Should have played nice with the Romans
Quote from: PJL on October 09, 2023, 03:52:39 PMCuriously, the one area where Israel did in fact stop 'colonising' was in Gaza, and it's the one area that has given it the most grief. So that's not the issue. And arguably what may happen now (hopefully) is probably the best chance of stopping the pre-war situation, through another military occupation. Not nice for the people living there, but I suspect will actually be a bit better for them then living under Hamas rule.
It's the same people. We can't separate the issues.
Israel abandoned territory in Gaza, sealed it off and colonized further in the West Bank, pushing deeper every year.
It's part of the issues. I will not pretend there is only one issue. If there was a single issue to this conflict, I'm pretty certain all the mediators who tried since the British mandate would have solved the problem, no?
A military occupation like pre 1993 would be temporarily better for Gaza, yes. Over the long time, it would be like the West Bank. Once Israel has finish taking what it can over there, it will keep pushing back in Gaza.
Parties like the Likud or Yisrael Beiteinu don't recognize Palestinians as a distinct people worthy a distinct country. All of this territory belongs to Israel. If it's not them, it'll be another party similar to them. "Palestinians already have a country, it's called Jordan" is something I've often heard in debates over the years, here or on Paradox OT.
The first Intifada (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intifada) began while under the military occupation of Israel.
The West Bank is mostly under Israeli control, only 11% is under sole control of the Palestinians. It did not prevent the second Intifada to begin in the Old city of Jerusalem after Sharon's visit.
Another occupation will not change much. Hamas will be quiet for a few years, that's all. We'll see another round in two or three years, like always.
Quote from: viper37 on October 09, 2023, 04:57:56 PMAnother occupation will not change much. Hamas will be quiet for a few years, that's all. We'll see another round in two or three years, like always.
You're under the misapprehension that things are still the same - it's not. The Israel of 2 weeks ago ain't coming back. Hamas will still be around, but their days of ruling Gaza will soon be over. They will be less of a menace than they were previously. Longer term who knows what happens, but what I can assure you is the status quo of the last 20 years is most definitely over.
This thread is missing a choice comment or two from CdM.
Somemething something sack of fetuses
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 09, 2023, 04:10:21 PMQuoteBut the constant colonization had to stop.
Jews are the natives of an Israel. Arab Muslims are the colonizers.
So, what you are saying is that once you change your religion, you and your descendants no longer have the right to live where you always lived? But if you keep your religion and you move to another country, willingly or not, your descendants can come back in a millennia or two and have a right to live there?
I guess it's a good thing there are no more Canaanites polytheist groups in the world! Israelites are safe! :)
Joking aside, I'll post again the link I posted before about the genetics of the Palestinians:*
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11543891/
Other research exists on the subject, but most of these people are the descendants the Jews who inhabited the area since long ago and decided (or were forced) to convert to Islam.
*
The retractation of the article had nothing to do with the validity of the data.
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 09, 2023, 02:13:33 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2023, 01:53:58 PMIsrael isn't going to destroy Hamas. Hamas will live on the hearts of every child that believe Jews are descended from pigs and apes.
?
Hamas has lots of popular support and has brain-washed kids in the Gaza strip for 15 years using disgusting propaganda. One of the things they teach is that Jews are descended from pigs and apes.
Hamas will go underground and many leaders and fighters will die, but the idea of Hamas will live on.
Quote from: PJL on October 09, 2023, 05:09:18 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 09, 2023, 04:57:56 PMAnother occupation will not change much. Hamas will be quiet for a few years, that's all. We'll see another round in two or three years, like always.
You're under the misapprehension that things are still the same - it's not. The Israel of 2 weeks ago ain't coming back. Hamas will still be around, but their days of ruling Gaza will soon be over. They will be less of a menace than they were previously. Longer term who knows what happens, but what I can assure you is the status quo of the last 20 years is most definitely over.
Before Hamas, it was Fatah and the Al Aqsa Martyr brigades.
Even if Hamas was completely wiped out, something else will emerge.
Unless Israel decides to wipe out a significant proportion of the strip and cleanse the area. They certainly have the military means to do so.
If they don't do it, Hamas or some organization like it will come back. If they do it, they prove they're not really better than the Hamas.
Quote from: viper37 on October 09, 2023, 05:41:14 PMOther research exists on the subject, but most of these people are the descendants the Jews who inhabited the area since long ago and decided (or were forced) to convert to Islam.
That's not exactly what your article says.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 09, 2023, 05:42:21 PMOne of the things they teach is that Jews are descended from pigs and apes.
And the people voting for the likes of Sharon, Netanyahu and Lieberman over the years have proven how much love and respect they have for their Semitic Arab brothers.
Palestinians literally bask in the love (https://www.timesofisrael.com/at-jerusalem-flag-march-chants-of-death-to-arabs-and-assaults-on-palestinians/) of their Israeli neighbors here. So much love going on, you'd swear you're in Charlottesville during one of their Trumpist love parade! :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2023, 06:07:03 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 09, 2023, 05:41:14 PMOther research exists on the subject, but most of these people are the descendants the Jews who inhabited the area since long ago and decided (or were forced) to convert to Islam.
That's not exactly what your article says.
Nomads tend to wander around. This region of the world wasn't exactly stable over the thousand of years of humanity with different empires colliding in the area.
Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Palestinians) expands further on it with other sources:
Haaretz had decent article (https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/2015-10-20/ty-article/palestinians-and-jews-share-genetic-roots/0000017f-dc0e-df9c-a17f-fe1e57730000), with links to another study, about the same subject. Druze, Palestinians and modern Jewish Israelis all share a similar genetic makeup.
Both claims are as valid or invalid as one another. Palestinian nationalism is just as valid as Zionism.
Quote from: viper37 on October 09, 2023, 06:34:32 PMNomads tend to wander around. This region of the world wasn't exactly stable over the thousand of years of humanity with different empires colliding in the area.
Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Palestinians) expands further on it with other sources:
Haaretz had decent article (https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/2015-10-20/ty-article/palestinians-and-jews-share-genetic-roots/0000017f-dc0e-df9c-a17f-fe1e57730000), with links to another study, about the same subject. Druze, Palestinians and modern Jewish Israelis all share a similar genetic makeup.
Both claims are as valid or invalid as one another. Palestinian nationalism is just as valid as Zionism.
I don't doubt that they share similar genes. That's not the same as saying Palestinians are descended from Jews. Would you say Jews are descended from Palestinians (Caananites)?
Though in passing I thought Palestinians claimed lineage from the Philistines, not the Caananites.
DNA tests revealed Israelis and Palestinians are closely related ethnicities.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 09, 2023, 04:10:21 PMQuoteBut the constant colonization had to stop.
Jews are the natives of an Israel. Arab Muslims are the colonizers.
Not many Jews are 2000 years old, so you cannot be talking about the original Jews of Judea and Samaria. Most modern Jews, and Palestinians, are natives of greater Palestine.
I see Israel has turned off the electricity, gas and water to Gaza. I was surprised there was any cross border of that stuff to begin with.
Once the military operation is over, they should seal that border completely. I don't see why Israel should provide anything to Gaza ever again.
Quote from: grumbler on October 09, 2023, 09:49:29 PMQuote from: Hamilcar on October 09, 2023, 04:10:21 PMQuoteBut the constant colonization had to stop.
Jews are the natives of an Israel. Arab Muslims are the colonizers.
Not many Jews are 2000 years old, so you cannot be talking about the original Jews of Judea and Samaria. Most modern Jews, and Palestinians, are natives of greater Palestine.
I reject all narratives of Jews in Israel as colonizers. It's offensive and stupid.
Between the population of Jews expelled from Arab countries (former Ottoman territories), and Holocaust refugees something like 75% of Israeli Jews are direct descendants of refugees. Most of the rest are descendants of various diaspora populations in places like Russia, America, the weird African Jews etc.
The only population of Jews that meet anything close to a definition of "colonists" are the 19th century Jews sponsored by wealthy Zionists to settle and try to establish a Jewish homeland. I think by 1930 they had less than 50,000.
Lefties who hate Israel try to paint the picture that most Israelis derive from this origin because it is the only origin with any meaningful similarities to colonialism.
A country can be rooted in colonialism despite its population not being overwhelmingly direct descendants of settlers.
The Jews arrived first with the permission of the Ottomans and then the British, the two legal administrators of the territory. If they were colonizers, aren't all immigrants colonizers?
Much like American settlers arrived on Indigenous lands with the authorization of the federal government, yet it doesn't seem quite right to say it wasn't colonization.
Quote from: mongers on October 09, 2023, 04:51:35 PMQuote from: Maladict on October 09, 2023, 04:49:28 PMThis thread is giving me Old Languish vibes.
:yes:
Some people are also bringing their baggage along too.
Sorry, no
saudade this time.
I've been trying to find reliable numbers to see how big support Hamas has in Gaza. I've seen everything from 95% to almost nothing.
Most reliable numbers point to something like more than half of all Palestinians support Hamas over Fatah, with numbers from June 2023. Their support seems to go down in calmer times and up in times of conflict. Their support is larger in Gaza, something like 55-60% and amongst the younger population.
That's to compare with the Nazi's peaking at 37% of the vote, can't really find popularity numbers for later years. In parliamentary democracies it's very very rare to have a party with over 50% of the popular vote.
So, from a general view Hamas can be seen as having overwhelming support from the population of Gaza, it's about as common to not support them as it is to believe in UFO's in the US, about 40%.
The scenes of support from around the world for the terrorist acts and the horrible triumphal scenes from inside Gaza when the captives were driven around reinforces this view.
In short, their support inside Gaza seems less than I would have guessed, but still very very solid. This terrorist act seems to have popular support behind it, although it can be hard to know that.
Edit: According to wiki there's something like 2.4 million inhabitants in Gaza. The population being young means that I should guess that there's about 1 million adult supporters of Hamas. And in my mind they are fully deserving of the dildo of consequences, but something like 1-1.5 million non-adults or non-supporters of Hamas are stuck there also. It's an absolutely horrible nightmare.
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 10, 2023, 01:32:08 AMMuch like American settlers arrived on Indigenous lands with the authorization of the federal government, yet it doesn't seem quite right to say it wasn't colonization.
What is the essence of colonization?
Would Indians moving to Uganda under British administration be colonizers?
QuoteSo, from a general view Hamas can be seen as having overwhelming support from the population of Gaza, it's about as common to not support them as it is to believe in UFO's in the US, about 40%.
Kim has 104% support in north Korea.
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 10, 2023, 01:32:08 AMMuch like American settlers arrived on Indigenous lands with the authorization of the federal government, yet it doesn't seem quite right to say it wasn't colonization.
That was absolutely colonization.
To my mind it's stuff like British India which is a weird secondary usage of the word not fitting with the first.
Just looking at the numbers ... Israel's population doubled from 1990 to 2022 (4.6M to 9.2M), so I totally get that there's pressure for more settlement - the country has about the same size as Slovenia (at 4x the population) or about the size of New Jersey (with about 10% more population).
Meanwhile the Gaza Strip is slightly larger than Grenada, with 2M people living there.
Crazy how such small plots of lands can create such turmoil. :(
(https://i.imgur.com/MHtdfOW.png)
Sounds like Israel has a need for transit focussed development.
Who'd have thought it'd be a solution to the Israel - Palestine conflict too.
Quote from: Josquius on October 10, 2023, 02:32:24 AMQuoteSo, from a general view Hamas can be seen as having overwhelming support from the population of Gaza, it's about as common to not support them as it is to believe in UFO's in the US, about 40%.
Kim has 104% support in north Korea.
I would love to see reliable data that refutes me if you have it?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2023, 01:56:07 AMQuote from: Oexmelin on October 10, 2023, 01:32:08 AMMuch like American settlers arrived on Indigenous lands with the authorization of the federal government, yet it doesn't seem quite right to say it wasn't colonization.
What is the essence of colonization?
Would Indians moving to Uganda under British administration be colonizers?
This is first definition google gave me. So something about power. I don't know enough about the history in East Africa to comment.
Quotethe action or process of settling among and establishing control over the indigenous people of an area.
Thanks Grabby.
That certainly does not fit the Jews in Palestine up to 48.
Quote from: Threviel on October 10, 2023, 02:57:02 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 10, 2023, 02:32:24 AMQuoteSo, from a general view Hamas can be seen as having overwhelming support from the population of Gaza, it's about as common to not support them as it is to believe in UFO's in the US, about 40%.
Kim has 104% support in north Korea.
I would love to see reliable data that refutes me if you have it?
Thats the point.
Trying to poll the popularity of the leadership in a place where not supporting them might have bad consequences is a very difficult task.
Quote from: Josquius on October 10, 2023, 03:32:19 AMThats the point.
Trying to poll the popularity of the leadership in a place where not supporting them might have bad consequences is a very difficult task.
https://apnews.com/article/hamas-middle-east-science-32095d8e1323fc1cad819c34da08fd87 (https://apnews.com/article/hamas-middle-east-science-32095d8e1323fc1cad819c34da08fd87)
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/new-poll-shows-gazans-pragmatic-now-not-long-term (https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/new-poll-shows-gazans-pragmatic-now-not-long-term)
Gaza is not North Korea, polling is done all the time, even though, as you say, it's complicated. The second link seems to show a more complex picture of how much support Hamas has and that support of Hamas is not support of genocide.
QuoteAlso notable is that Gazans continue to express disapproval of Hamas' policies towards Israel. About half (53%) agree at least somewhat that "Hamas should stop calling for Israel's destruction, and instead accept a permanent two-state solution based on the 1967 borders," a percentage that has held steady over the last three years. 59% of Gazans also agree that Hamas should give up its armed units in favor of PA officers in Gaza. Likewise, nearly two-thirds of Gazans would agree at least somewhat with the need for Hamas to preserve the cease-fire in both Gaza and the West Bank.
Edit: Washington Institute is a pro-Israel think tank, so take it with a grain of salt.
Quote from: Threviel on October 10, 2023, 03:55:24 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 10, 2023, 03:32:19 AMThats the point.
Trying to poll the popularity of the leadership in a place where not supporting them might have bad consequences is a very difficult task.
https://apnews.com/article/hamas-middle-east-science-32095d8e1323fc1cad819c34da08fd87 (https://apnews.com/article/hamas-middle-east-science-32095d8e1323fc1cad819c34da08fd87)
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/new-poll-shows-gazans-pragmatic-now-not-long-term (https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/new-poll-shows-gazans-pragmatic-now-not-long-term)
Gaza is not North Korea, polling is done all the time, even though, as you say, it's complicated. The second link seems to show a more complex picture of how much support Hamas has and that support of Hamas is not support of genocide.
QuoteAlso notable is that Gazans continue to express disapproval of Hamas' policies towards Israel. About half (53%) agree at least somewhat that "Hamas should stop calling for Israel's destruction, and instead accept a permanent two-state solution based on the 1967 borders," a percentage that has held steady over the last three years. 59% of Gazans also agree that Hamas should give up its armed units in favor of PA officers in Gaza. Likewise, nearly two-thirds of Gazans would agree at least somewhat with the need for Hamas to preserve the cease-fire in both Gaza and the West Bank.
Sure. Gaza isn't North Korea. Hence the poll numbers not being so mad.
There undoubtedly is however a huge pressure to profess your support for the violent bastards lest they use violence against you.
Be caught saying "Jews are people too. We should seek mutual understanding with them" and a beating is due- especially if you fall into those young men demographics.
I'd say its somewhere between North Korea (party line or bullets) and being progressive in a conservative hick town in the west (/working in the non profit sector or some such and being conservative. Shy Tories are a known thing.).
I'd be curious how they managed to get the more nuanced numbers.
Footage of attack on kibbutz.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZBTXaclQV0
QuoteMethodological Note: This analysis is based on a face-to-face survey, conducted June 6-21, 2022, with a true random, geographical probability sample of 513 Palestinian adult (age 18+) residents of Gaza. The author personally reviewed the questionnaire's translation, sampling procedures and quality controls, assurances of confidentiality, and other fieldwork protocols with the entire Palestinian professional team, based in Beit Sahour on the West Bank. The statistical margin of error for a sample of this size and nature is 6 percent, at the 95% confidence level. Additional methodological details, including full responses to all questions in the survey, are available on request, or on the Washington Institute's new interactive polling data platform.
But as with all polling, you get the answers you want. It seems very difficult to find good data, which is not surprising really.
From an Israeli perspective it makes me think that a more measured response would have been preferable. Sure, it's time to go in and decapitate Hamas and it's going to get bloody, but restraint in bombing would perhaps create some goodwill for the aftermath. Make clear that Hamas is the enemy, not the people of Gaza. Some way 2 million+ Palestinians need to be handled after the war and not going all Soviet on them would probably be preferable.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 09, 2023, 03:48:46 PMIf true this would be a sign of just how crazily large the incursion was.
Also saw this in Reuters which is extraordinary:
QuoteIn one of the most striking elements of their preparations, Hamas constructed a mock Israeli settlement in Gaza where they practiced a military landing and trained to storm it, the source close to Hamas said, adding they even made videos of the manoeuvres.
"Israel surely saw them but they were convinced that Hamas wasn't keen on getting into a confrontation," the source said.
Edit: Incidentally this is partl why I suspect Hamas have also been preparing for this stage of the Israeli response too.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2023, 01:22:57 AMThe Jews arrived first with the permission of the Ottomans and then the British, the two legal administrators of the territory. If they were colonizers, aren't all immigrants colonizers?
So the logic is that if two colonizing states allow other colonists into an area, they control, and then those people who enter or not themselves colonists. That's some interesting, mental gymnastics.
Although, weren't they more imperial than colonial states? Which, in fairness, just begs the question of how to describe early Zionists.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2023, 08:57:56 AMAlthough, weren't they more imperial than colonial states? Which, in fairness, just begs the question of how to describe early Zionists.
Fair point. But an imperialist power can also be a colonizer. See North America.
To the extent the British brought in outside populations which displaced indigenous populations, I think it can fairly be called a colonizer.
Also, Israel doesn't exist without the Balfour declaration.
"Babies, their heads cut off."
https://x.com/i24NEWS_EN/status/1711697093151056355?s=20
It occurs to me that the people who think that the Jewish population who settled in what is now the state of Israel we're always there may not understand the history of how the state of Israel was created.
A critical step was the Balfour declaration, the text of which is quite short:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
Note the recognition that there was existing in that territory communities of Palestinians. This was the creation of something to which the Jews of the world could go to, and create a homeland. Not the recognition of an existing homeland.
It's not surprising that the Palestinians, who lost their land, do largely impart to this declaration view the Israelis as settlers on their land.
To be clear, none of this excuses what Hamas has done.
Also an annoying point I often see from the useful idiots is the whole "Jews have been there for millenia. Its natural homeland! Palestinians have other countries!" thing.
A whole lot of ignorance of just where the Palestinian population come from- a huge chunk of their makeup comes from the native population who were Christianised under the Romans then heavily Islam/Arabised under the various muslim empires.
The Palestinians sadly seem to have themselves (well, their ancestors) to blame with much of this- it previously being considered socially desirable to concentrate on that one bit of your heritage that can be traced back to the Arab homeland.
Quote from: Josquius on October 10, 2023, 09:19:34 AMAlso an annoying point I often see from the useful idiots is the whole "Jews have been there for millenia. Its natural homeland! Palestinians have other countries!" thing.
A whole lot of ignorance of just where the Palestinian population come from- a huge chunk of their makeup comes from the native population who were Christianised under the Romans then heavily Islam/Arabised under the various muslim empires.
The Palestinians sadly seem to have themselves (well, their ancestors) to blame with much of this- it previously being considered socially desirable to concentrate on that one bit of your heritage that can be traced back to the Arab homeland.
Yep. For people who want to take religious texts, as literally a true one wonders why they don't advocate for cr
Quote from: Josquius on October 10, 2023, 09:19:34 AMAlso an annoying point I often see from the useful idiots is the whole "Jews have been there for millenia. Its natural homeland! Palestinians have other countries!" thing.
A whole lot of ignorance of just where the Palestinian population come from- a huge chunk of their makeup comes from the native population who were Christianised under the Romans then heavily Islam/Arabised under the various muslim empires.
The Palestinians sadly seem to have themselves (well, their ancestors) to blame with much of this- it previously being considered socially desirable to concentrate on that one bit of your heritage that can be traced back to the Arab homeland.
I have mentioned this book before, years ago, but if somebody is interested in finding out how unlikely the recognition of a Jewish homeland within Palestine was, and the fact that the creation of such a homeland was widely unpopular within the international Jewish community, I suggest
https://www.amazon.ca/Balfour-Declaration-Origins-Arab-Israeli-Conflict/dp/0385662599
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 10, 2023, 01:02:48 AMA country can be rooted in colonialism despite its population not being overwhelmingly direct descendants of settlers.
Sure. I don't think that is a fair description of Israel, though. Many of the countries earliest and most important leaders were direct descendants of refugees.
Under Ottoman laws Jews had rights to live in the Empire, and had for its entire existence. The desire to other them or act like they have no business being there serves an entirely fictional and biased narrative.
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 10, 2023, 01:32:08 AMMuch like American settlers arrived on Indigenous lands with the authorization of the federal government, yet it doesn't seem quite right to say it wasn't colonization.
So you would say that legal asylees in Europe and America are colonizers? (I bet not, almost like you're just going to twist various ways to ape stupid lefty biases on Israel.)
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2023, 04:21:26 AMEdit: Incidentally this is partl why I suspect Hamas have also been preparing for this stage of the Israeli response too.
Eh, based on Hamas calls for peace I think they are actually not that prepared for this stage.
Hamas own leadership claims only a small number of top military commanders knew of the attacks beforehand. That suggests the entire organization probably was not preparing for this, which is probably part of how it was never detected by Israeli intelligence.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2023, 09:10:04 AMIt occurs to me that the people who think that the Jewish population who settled in what is now the state of Israel we're always there may not understand the history of how the state of Israel was created.
The idea that they were "always there" is silly, but the idea that means they have less right to be there than the Arabs is confusing and dumb. The Ottoman Empire had 900,000 Jews, almost none of whom were ever going to be allowed to remain in Islamist or Arab Nationalist post-Ottoman states.
Were they just supposed to fuck off and die? Or did it make sense for them to have some small enclave out of the huge swathe of Ottoman lands to try and live in?
And the Ottomans were not "colonizers" of the Levant, that's stupid and dumb, and attempting to water down the word "colonizer" to basically mean "anything."
There have always been large movements of peoples and cultures throughout Anatolia / Middle East/Levant, not all migrations are colonization, not all movements of peoples are colonization.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 10, 2023, 09:58:16 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2023, 09:10:04 AMIt occurs to me that the people who think that the Jewish population who settled in what is now the state of Israel we're always there may not understand the history of how the state of Israel was created.
The idea that they were "always there" is silly, but the idea that means they have less right to be there than the Arabs is confusing and dumb. The Ottoman Empire had 900,000 Jews, almost none of whom were ever going to be allowed to remain in Islamist or Arab Nationalist post-Ottoman states.
Were they just supposed to fuck off and die? Or did it make sense for them to have some small enclave out of the huge swathe of Ottoman lands to try and live in?
And the Ottomans were not "colonizers" of the Levant, that's stupid and dumb, and attempting to water down the word "colonizer" to basically mean "anything."
There have always been large movements of peoples and cultures throughout Anatolia / Middle East/Levant, not all migrations are colonization, not all movements of peoples are colonization.
You are ignoring entirely the influx of populations which occurred after the Balfour declaration, and particularly after the creation of the state of Israel. If you read the history of the region, there was not much if any conflict between the Jewish and Palestinian communities until the Palestinian started to be displaced from their historical homelands.
To put it bluntly the local Palestinian communities did not treat the Jewish communities the way the Israeli community is now treating the Palestinians.
The Israelis have an effectively told the Palestinians to, in your words, fuck off and leave.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2023, 10:16:23 AMYou are ignoring entirely the influx of populations which occurred after the Balfour declaration, and particularly after the creation of the state of Israel. If you read the history of the region, there was not much if any conflict between the Jewish and Palestinian communities until the Palestinian started to be displaced from their historical homelands.
I'm not ignoring it, I am saying it wasn't that large. 900,000 Jews were expelled or migrated from other parts of the former Ottoman Empire because they were being actively forced, or the "writing was on the wall" that they were not welcome.
In 1922, the first census in the British Mandate since its takeover found around 80,000 Jews. Most of these were indeed Jews who had settled, often with financial backing from wealthier European Jews, as part of the deliberate Zionist colonization movement--going back to around 1880. [I will correct your claim that they were living peacefully with the Palestinians. Their MO was to buy land from absentee Turkish land lords; most based in Istanbul, many Arab residents in the 1880s were still semi-Nomadic, and the settled Arabs often were living on land they either rented--or had simply occupied without owning for years. There were common clashes between Zionist settlements and Arab villages.] A small share of that 80,000 were members of the "permanent" Jewish population in the Levant which had actually been there since time immemorial, but it was such a small population as to be relatively irrelevant to our discussion.
By 1931 the Jewish population had grown to 173,000--which certainly was caused by the Balfour Declaration increasing Jewish interest in migration. However, this is still before the large migrations.
In 1941 the population jumped to 475,000--and this jump was almost entirely Jews fleeing, or being forced out, of other places. Then it jumped again to 600,000 in 1946--again, almost entirely refugee driven growth. And then it jumped against after Israeli statehood was declared and successfully defended--and this was the largest growth
and night-entirely refugee driven. If not for the Jewish refugee crisis it is unlikely that the Jewish population in the mandate would have even exceeded 200,000 by 1945, so pretending that the mass of Jewish refugees aren't the primary story of Israel's founding is incredibly false.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2023, 10:16:23 AMTo put it bluntly the local Palestinian communities did not treat the Jewish communities the way the Israeli community is now treating the Palestinians.
The local Arab communities never won wars against the Jews and took military occupation over their lands, so it isn't a direct comparison. But the idea that the Palestinians were docile loving lambs who just hugged everyone is entirely fictional. If you have even studied the history of the British and French Mandates at all you would know the entire region was awash in religious and ethnic nationalist violence throughout the 1930s and 40s. Roving bands of genocidal men were active, with all communities participating. There were bands of Jewish soldiers who went around mass murdering Arab Muslims and Christians. There were bands of Arab Christians and Muslims who did the same to Jews (and to other Arabs of the "wrong" religion.) Minority ethnic and religious groups like the Assyrians, Kurds, Yazidi, Druze and Alawites all suffered varying degrees of mass murder with genocidal intent. Even just "local" minorities, like groups of Arabs in one region who were Sunni when more of the locals were Shiite, and vice versa, suffered as well.
This was a rough time, a time of nationalism and religious supremacy, in an age when the Western world was busy gearing up for (and later fighting) WWII. Only someone with a strong preconceived bias is going to come in and paint the Jews as the villains--or really any of the "broad" ethnic / religious groups. All of these groups
had villainous murderers in them, but it is not helpful and frankly encourages bigoted thinking to "blame" Arabs, or Christians, or Jews or Muslims.
Quote from: Josquius on October 10, 2023, 09:19:34 AMAlso an annoying point I often see from the useful idiots is the whole "Jews have been there for millenia. Its natural homeland! Palestinians have other countries!" thing.
A whole lot of ignorance of just where the Palestinian population come from- a huge chunk of their makeup comes from the native population who were Christianised under the Romans then heavily Islam/Arabised under the various muslim empires.
The Palestinians sadly seem to have themselves (well, their ancestors) to blame with much of this- it previously being considered socially desirable to concentrate on that one bit of your heritage that can be traced back to the Arab homeland.
If you want to bring genetics into this then of course most people if they live where they were born would carry genes back to the first settlement of that place, I am sure, unless we are saying that shift of cultures also meant total physical eradication of followers of previous cultures. Which I am fairly sure study of history moved past a long time ago.
Also what is the ultimate goal of this discussion? To decide who has dibs on the land? This might seem like a unique Israel/Palestine conundrum to you but the Balkans and Eastern Europe is choke full of similar conflicts and dilemmas. Who does Transylvania belong to, for example? Romanians? Why? Because they have some dubious continution claims from ancient Roman times? What about the Hungarians for whom -in a very clearly recorded way- it was a key economic and more importantly cultural region for a thousand years? But what about the Romanians who also very clearly recordedly lived there for many centuries? What about the Germans who played a key role in urbanisation there? Oh wait forget about the Germans they have largely been shipped out.
Kosovo? Bosnia? Novi Sad and its region full of Hungarians in Serbia? Moldova? Etc. etc.
For some reason the Western public isn't constantly spinning around like crazy over these. Sure there isn't any quasi-apartheid of Hungarians going on now but all these various ethnicities were merrily pogroming and cleansing each other since the mid-19th century at least. Or in Kosovo, is anyone considering just MAYBE the Serbs stuck on the brand-new side of the border might have rightful grievances? Do those grievances mean Albanians have no right to avoid risking being ethnic cleansed again?
So I think the reason why Palestine is the only of the dozens of such disputed territories being focused is because a) the Jews are involved and b) the Palestinians are resorting to terrorism to get their voice heard.
Pre-47, there was always a small but material Jewish community in the Palestinian region. There was a good deal of immigration in the Ottoman period and good deal more in the British mandatory period. IMO it makes zero sense to refer to that immigration as colonization, any more than it makes sense to refer to Chinese colonizing the lower east side of New York city or Dominicans colonizing Washington Heights. Colonization implies territorial and jurisdictional control and the Jews had none. They were admitted under Ottoman/British law and subject to their jurisdiction.
Pre 48 the only ones colonizing Palestine were the Ottomans and British.
The events of 1948-1967 are familiar to most and while any number of claims or judgments can be made, the concept of colonization simply doesn't fit.
Post 67, the 21st century era build up of settlements in the occupied areas of the West Bank does fit within the rubric of colonization. But that phenomenon has nothing to do with Hamas and Gaza. Hamas does not particularly object to the WB settlements, it objects to Israel tout court. It isn't bombing Modin, it is shelling Ashkelon.
I make these points for the sake of accuracy or clarity not as pleading for the Israeli side. I personally do not take the term "colonial" as the all purpose term of abuse that some do. I happen to live in a nation founded by colonizers out of colonial states. I do think such an origin creates certain continuing moral obligations to persons displaced by that process, and that is an area where both the USA and Israel have historically failed rather badly. But again that is not the matter at issue today in Gaza.
Quote from: Tamas on October 10, 2023, 11:14:32 AMSo I think the reason why Palestine is the only of the dozens of such disputed territories being focused is because a) the Jews are involved and b) the Palestinians are resorting to terrorism to get their voice heard.
You make good points. I would add to your list that one should not ignore the political influence North American evangelicals have and their believe that the existence of Israel is necessary so that the Temple can be rebuilt in order for Jesus to return according to their interpretation of biblical prophecy.
Quote from: Threviel on October 10, 2023, 01:50:16 AMI've been trying to find reliable numbers to see how big support Hamas has in Gaza. I've seen everything from 95% to almost nothing.
Most reliable numbers point to something like more than half of all Palestinians support Hamas over Fatah, with numbers from June 2023. Their support seems to go down in calmer times and up in times of conflict. Their support is larger in Gaza, something like 55-60% and amongst the younger population.
That's to compare with the Nazi's peaking at 37% of the vote, can't really find popularity numbers for later years. In parliamentary democracies it's very very rare to have a party with over 50% of the popular vote.
So, from a general view Hamas can be seen as having overwhelming support from the population of Gaza, it's about as common to not support them as it is to believe in UFO's in the US, about 40%.
The scenes of support from around the world for the terrorist acts and the horrible triumphal scenes from inside Gaza when the captives were driven around reinforces this view.
In short, their support inside Gaza seems less than I would have guessed, but still very very solid. This terrorist act seems to have popular support behind it, although it can be hard to know that.
Edit: According to wiki there's something like 2.4 million inhabitants in Gaza. The population being young means that I should guess that there's about 1 million adult supporters of Hamas. And in my mind they are fully deserving of the dildo of consequences, but something like 1-1.5 million non-adults or non-supporters of Hamas are stuck there also. It's an absolutely horrible nightmare.
From what I read, most Palestinians seem to view Hamas as less corrupt than Fatah.
A majority reject the extremist views of Hamas, but a solid core approve of their terrorism actions and their objective of a Palestine without Jews.
Just like a solid percentage of Israelis approve of the colonization and the constant destruction and killing of Palestinian civilians, regardless of their involvement with Hamas.
75 years of warfare tend to do that to people. I don't think the Siegebreaker view is the odd, isolated one among the Israeli.
Quote from: Tamas on October 10, 2023, 11:14:32 AMSo I think the reason why Palestine is the only of the dozens of such disputed territories being focused is because a) the Jews are involved and b) the Palestinians are resorting to terrorism to get their voice heard.
Well put Tamas.
Quote from: viper37 on October 10, 2023, 11:43:55 AMFrom what I read, most Palestinians seem to view Hamas as less corrupt than Fatah.
It is actually possible Hamas
is less corrupt than Fatah. Fatah and the PLO on a percentile scale, are basically at "100%" corruption. So even if Hamas is "only" 75% corrupt, that is still a significant amount less corrupt than Fatah. Now, Hamas is also a violent terrorist group, which definitely outweighs any positives in their being less corrupt administratively.
Quote from: viper37 on October 10, 2023, 11:43:55 AMQuote from: Threviel on October 10, 2023, 01:50:16 AMI've been trying to find reliable numbers to see how big support Hamas has in Gaza. I've seen everything from 95% to almost nothing.
Most reliable numbers point to something like more than half of all Palestinians support Hamas over Fatah, with numbers from June 2023. Their support seems to go down in calmer times and up in times of conflict. Their support is larger in Gaza, something like 55-60% and amongst the younger population.
That's to compare with the Nazi's peaking at 37% of the vote, can't really find popularity numbers for later years. In parliamentary democracies it's very very rare to have a party with over 50% of the popular vote.
So, from a general view Hamas can be seen as having overwhelming support from the population of Gaza, it's about as common to not support them as it is to believe in UFO's in the US, about 40%.
The scenes of support from around the world for the terrorist acts and the horrible triumphal scenes from inside Gaza when the captives were driven around reinforces this view.
In short, their support inside Gaza seems less than I would have guessed, but still very very solid. This terrorist act seems to have popular support behind it, although it can be hard to know that.
Edit: According to wiki there's something like 2.4 million inhabitants in Gaza. The population being young means that I should guess that there's about 1 million adult supporters of Hamas. And in my mind they are fully deserving of the dildo of consequences, but something like 1-1.5 million non-adults or non-supporters of Hamas are stuck there also. It's an absolutely horrible nightmare.
From what I read, most Palestinians seem to view Hamas as less corrupt than Fatah.
A majority reject the extremist views of Hamas, but a solid core approve of their terrorism actions and their objective of a Palestine without Jews.
Just like a solid percentage of Israelis approve of the colonization and the constant destruction and killing of Palestinian civilians, regardless of their involvement with Hamas.
75 years of warfare tend to do that to people. I don't think the Siegebreaker view is the odd, isolated one among the Israeli.
It's not just an Israel/Palestine thing IMO. I've come to the conclusion that a third of humanity are just nasty, plain & simple. You may quibble on the exact numbers, but I reckon that figure is a good ballpark estimate.
QuoteIsrael's military has discovered unspeakable horrors in an Israeli community that was attacked by Hamas on Saturday, including dozens of dead babies, some with of their heads chopped off, Israeli media reported.
According to local Israeli outlet i24News, Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers moved into Kfar Aza, one of the communities Hamas terrorists invaded early Saturday morning, and discovered about 40 dead babies, some decapitated — highlighting the brutality of the invading forces.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 10, 2023, 11:31:18 AMPre-47, there was always a small but material Jewish community in the Palestinian region. There was a good deal of immigration in the Ottoman period and good deal more in the British mandatory period. IMO it makes zero sense to refer to that immigration as colonization, any more than it makes sense to refer to Chinese colonizing the lower east side of New York city or Dominicans colonizing Washington Heights. Colonization implies territorial and jurisdictional control and the Jews had none. They were admitted under Ottoman/British law and subject to their jurisdiction.
Pre 48 the only ones colonizing Palestine were the Ottomans and British.
The events of 1948-1967 are familiar to most and while any number of claims or judgments can be made, the concept of colonization simply doesn't fit.
Post 67, the 21st century era build up of settlements in the occupied areas of the West Bank does fit within the rubric of colonization. But that phenomenon has nothing to do with Hamas and Gaza. Hamas does not particularly object to the WB settlements, it objects to Israel tout court. It isn't bombing Modin, it is shelling Ashkelon.
I make these points for the sake of accuracy or clarity not as pleading for the Israeli side. I personally do not take the term "colonial" as the all purpose term of abuse that some do. I happen to live in a nation founded by colonizers out of colonial states. I do think such an origin creates certain continuing moral obligations to persons displaced by that process, and that is an area where both the USA and Israel have historically failed rather badly. But again that is not the matter at issue today in Gaza.
I am not sure how useful a distinction there is to the influx of Jewish populations after the Balfour declaration as being British colonization vs colonization by the influx of the population actually taking up residence.
If your characterization is accepted then there is nothing wrong with continuing to displace Palestinians by building even more settlements. They are called
settlements for a reason :P
If the indigenous population of Palestinians was not displaced through a process of colonization, what would you call that process?
Lastly, this has everything to do with what is happening in Gaza today. There would be no HAMAS without the displacement of Palestinians. And ignoring the fact that Gaza is populated by displaced Palestinians provides less of a moderating force on an extreme Israeli Prime Minister who must feel empowered to do his worst to that population.
Is the reverse true? Are Palestinian actions the cause of the rise of the far-right in Israel?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2023, 12:13:19 PMIs the reverse true? Are Palestinian actions the cause of the rise of the far-right in Israel?
It is an interesting question. I think the peace process in the 80s was more of a causal factor. It was a right wing extremist who assassinated the Israeli PM in response to Israel coming close to finding a resolution with the Palestinians.
Has there been any credible speculation (or clear statements for that matter) of what Israel sees as its objectives?
My uninformed perspective is that Israel seems to clearly be pursuing these objectives:
1) Destroy any and all structures, materiel, and personnel (especially leadership) associated with Hamas that Israel can reach; as thoroughly and spectacularly as possible.
2) Keep Hizbullah and other actors from joining the conflict, with threats of apocalyptic responses (see the threats to attack Damascus).
When it comes to the hostages, all the reporting and commentary I'm seeing is along the lines of "well they've most likely been written off, this is war". I'm not seeing any statements that significant resources are being committed to locating and rescuing them - but that could because it's too early, and be because such effort are going to be kept quiet until they're acted upon.
I also get the sense that the Israeli response at this time is not unhappy about blowing up as much Palestinian stuff in general and inflicting massive damage on Palestinians as a whole.
So at this stage, the Israeli response seems to be focused on overwhelming retaliation, which is reasonable enough given the nature of the Hamas attack, and how recent it was.
But has there been any indication of Israeli objectives and policy beyond that?
1. Israel has been quite vague. They told Biden they were going in with a ground invasion, but no ETA on it. And no clear goal other than "we will change Gaza's reality" and various statements that they are going to do things "Gazans will remember for 50 years."
2. On the hostages, rescue is almost certainly not possible, but if there is even the slimmest chance, it would be done by special forces and they aren't going to discuss their plans. There are some leaders in the Arab world trying to pressure Hamas to release the women and children, I suspect because they realize the PR optics of keeping them is abysmal.
Hamas cannot have been hoping for a hostage swap given their brutality. They must have done this hoping to create the reaction from Israel that is now coming. If it was not already an eternal conflict, it will be now.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2023, 12:02:13 PMIf the indigenous population of Palestinians was not displaced through a process of colonization, what would you call that process?
War.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2023, 12:31:24 PMHamas cannot have been hoping for a hostage swap given their brutality. They must have done this hoping to create the reaction from Israel that is now coming. If it was not already an eternal conflict, it will be now.
I disagree--I think it is usually prudent to believe what they tell us. Hamas was talking hostage swap on day 1, and every indication is they assumed Israel would just do a few rounds of bombings and then negotiate.
Something worth remembering is not all actors make good decisions, and Hamas is a terrorist group with a shaky command structure--apparently only a small part of their military command even was involved in this operation's planning, which means lots of the organization would never have had a chance to weigh in or even possibly warn that the idea could be bad. It is not dissimilar to how Putin's Russia made decisions leading up to the Ukraine invasion, where lots of false ideas (like that they could just drop a few special forces around Kyiv and take the city's airport--that entire special forces team died to the last man) spread because of no critical voices in Putin's circle.
Quote'Hard questions' will be asked after mass killing of civilians: Analyst
Sultan Barakat, a professor in conflict mediation and humanitarian studies at Hamad Bin Khalifa University, says the massacre of Israeli civilians should not have been carried out and Hamas leaders will investigate what happened.
"I suspect Hamas, when the dust settles, will be asking hard questions whether they could have achieved their objective without going into the civilian areas. I don't think these were predetermined attacks, particularly the music festival. They really could have hurt Israel just by concentrating on military bases and security checkpoints, which on its own is a great win for them," Barakat told Al Jazeera.
At least 260 people died at the Supernova music festival after gunmen arrived in paragliders, trucks and motorcycles.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 10, 2023, 12:34:10 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2023, 12:02:13 PMIf the indigenous population of Palestinians was not displaced through a process of colonization, what would you call that process?
War.
Ok, but isn't that the same mechanism by which the US displaced much of its Indigenous population? Would you say the US did not engage in actions of a colonizer?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 10, 2023, 12:35:09 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2023, 12:31:24 PMHamas cannot have been hoping for a hostage swap given their brutality. They must have done this hoping to create the reaction from Israel that is now coming. If it was not already an eternal conflict, it will be now.
I disagree--I think it is usually prudent to believe what they tell us. Hamas was talking hostage swap on day 1, and every indication is they assumed Israel would just do a few rounds of bombings and then negotiate.
Something worth remembering is not all actors make good decisions, and Hamas is a terrorist group with a shaky command structure--apparently only a small part of their military command even was involved in this operation's planning, which means lots of the organization would never have had a chance to weigh in or even possibly warn that the idea could be bad. It is not dissimilar to how Putin's Russia made decisions leading up to the Ukraine invasion, where lots of false ideas (like that they could just drop a few special forces around Kyiv and take the city's airport--that entire special forces team died to the last man) spread because of no critical voices in Putin's circle.
Good points. I did not realize Hamas had made those statements.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 10, 2023, 01:06:41 PMQuote'Hard questions' will be asked after mass killing of civilians: Analyst
Sultan Barakat, a professor in conflict mediation and humanitarian studies at Hamad Bin Khalifa University, says the massacre of Israeli civilians should not have been carried out and Hamas leaders will investigate what happened.
"I suspect Hamas, when the dust settles, will be asking hard questions whether they could have achieved their objective without going into the civilian areas. I don't think these were predetermined attacks, particularly the music festival. They really could have hurt Israel just by concentrating on military bases and security checkpoints, which on its own is a great win for them," Barakat told Al Jazeera.
I call BS. Hamas has always been in the business of attacking civilians. Historically their main weapon was suicide bomb attacks on civilian targets. This operation was carefully and extensively planned; they didn't just accidentally murder a huge number of civilians by mistake.
Also difficult to see how they cold mobilize 1-2000 invaders, mock Israeli villages for practice, personel and equipment to fire 5000 missiles on a given day, equipment to go through the fence, and only have small numbers in the leadership inowing about it.
By following a classic terrorist cell-type structure, I'd guess.
Most participants might not have known of the scope until Saturday.
Quote from: Threviel on October 10, 2023, 01:44:45 PMAlso difficult to see how they cold mobilize 1-2000 invaders, mock Israeli villages for practice, personel and equipment to fire 5000 missiles on a given day, equipment to go through the fence, and only have small numbers in the leadership inowing about it.
Hamas has all the structures of a state, various ministries etc. Many of its top leaders and governing council are outside of its organizations that handle their military stuff. Same way the Secretary of the Treasury has no idea what missions the Navy SEALs are planning.
Good points.
So maybe Hamas - or the decision makers within Hamas who organized the attack - thought "this will be a daring and impressive strike, and we'll get hostages that we can use for leverage" - and either they didn't appreciate how the massacre part of the action would change perception, or the massacre part weren't planned but happened somewhat spontaneously.
If so, then for Israel the main objective at this point is to draw a hard line and make the consequences so severe that Hamas or any other actors do not engage in such acts again. There doesn't really need to be any further goals or plan beyond massive reprisal on the theory that Hamas - and Palestinians in general - will learn "not to do this again" even if they build up the capability to (which Israel will do its best destroy).
Does that sound about right?
Difficult to see a group tasked with taking hostages end up decapitating babies. Could they possibly have been medicated with anxiety-lowering medication, gang war style?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2023, 09:01:20 AMFair point. But an imperialist power can also be a colonizer. See North America.
To the extent the British brought in outside populations which displaced indigenous populations, I think it can fairly be called a colonizer.
Also, Israel doesn't exist without the Balfour declaration.
Yes - I also want to say up front that this is nothing to do with Hamas' attack and I'm not doing a "what did people think decolonisation was?" bit. This is purely a historical issue I think is interesting - and could be moved into a separate thread.
I think that needs more context because while the British bringing in outside populations is one way of framing it, I think it's wrong - I think it also in a way excuses Britain's, to nick a phrase, "low dishonest" role.
I think one bit of very important context is that Britain passes its first ever anti-immigration law in the 1900s-10s, which is more or less explicitly aimed at Jews fleeing pogroms who'd been arriving in th UK. I think a few years later (I want to say under Wilson) the US passes similar legislation. Those restrictions have even stronger support after the Russian Revolution because of the (false) perception of Jews as dangerous revolutionaries which I think leads to other countries restricting Jewish migration.
There are two contradictory promises made by the Brits to both Arabs and Jews by Lawrence and Balfour. Once the Brits are running Mandatory Palestine they impose a strict quota on Jewish migration which they also make very expensive - so my understanding is that in points during the 20s the quota isn't actually hit. It is easier but perhaps more costly for Jews to migrate to Palestine than during Ottoman rule.
With the rise of the Nazis and growing Jewish fears in Europe I think those quotas are always being hit, not least because families sell everything they've got to pay the fee. But in part that is also driven by the mainland UK (and other countries) closing their doors to Jewish migration. There's an Arab revolt which causes the British to slash the quota and during this time the Royal Navy is stopping and impounding and sending back ships of Jewish migrants to Europe.
That policy continues during and after the war. Attlee and Bevin are heroes and great men with many very admirable qualities and accomplishments - they were both also anti-semites which shaped their policy in this area which is, in my view and like Partition, one of the most shameful incidents (albeit over many years) in the history of the British empire. First Jews from liberated concentration camps are kept in the same concentration camps as displaced people - obviously the British are not trying to exterminate them so there is food and medical care (it's one of the reasons rations last in the UK so long is shipments of food to Germany) etc, but still... In addition the British absolutely refuse numerous calls including from Truman - and I think the Soviets - to either lift the quota or have an emergency high quota for those displaced people. Instead - again - you have the Royal Navy stopping, impounding and returning boats full of Holocaust survivors to Europe where they will be placed in the former concentration camps while their status as "displaced people" was resolved.
That's also part of the reason most of the people attacking British forces in Mandatory Palestine post-war are Jewish groups. In addition this is when there's arguably another British betrayal (though it's not so clear as the contradictory promises to the Arabs and Jews) because the British decide they don't want an independent Palestinian state and instead throw their lot in with Jordan to rule the Arab Palestinian areas - it is, of course, Lt Gen Sir John Bagot Glubb Pasha who leads the Arab Legion (later the Jordanian Army) in the Israeli War of Independence and who occupies the West Bank for Jordan.
I say that because I think there's two sides that describing it as "British colonisation" possibly misses. One is that in the same way as enslaved people or transported prisoners to Australia are settled by Britain, but they are not "settlers" in the way that others are in, say British North America. They are not there by choice or for some opportunity. There is almost a paradox in that the people who are there most obviously as a result of "British colonisation" are perhaps least colonising. I don't think it's the same with Jews moving to Palestine pre-war but it's not totally by choice. It's not prisoners or enslaved people, but it's not people moving in the hopeful expectation of a better life either. I think the closing of doors to Jews fleeing and the rise of the Nazis created a context where if they could get the money together and get in the quota, Palestine was one of the few places where Jews could still flee.
The other bit is that for those individuals who did get to Mandatory Palestine it was simultaneously because of and in spite of British policy. I imagine every single one of those individuals would have known friends or family who were blocked from moving to Palestine because of British policy. So I don't think they would recognise themselves as there because of British colonisation (though in a way they were) - as I say, if anything, they were there (and alive) in spite of it. As I say, I think overall you look at it and can't help but feel that there would be possibly millions of European Jews who would not have been killed with other decisions and there is an incredible lack of humanity and morality in Britain's policy after the war.
I don't know where that gets you in the historical description of the Jewish population who help create Israel.
QuoteBut has there been any indication of Israeli objectives and policy beyond that?
Not from what I've seen. Netanyahu had a statement about resolve and following through until "the goals" are met but it wasn't clear what those are.
QuoteEh, based on Hamas calls for peace I think they are actually not that prepared for this stage.
Hamas own leadership claims only a small number of top military commanders knew of the attacks beforehand. That suggests the entire organization probably was not preparing for this, which is probably part of how it was never detected by Israeli intelligence.
By prepared I mean making Gaza a difficult place for Israeli forces to invade. Tunnels within Gaza, spots for traps etc which I think they will have been doing generally since the last invasion.
I'm also not so sure on their calls for peace indicating that. It might be that they're not prepared are concerned - I think it may also be spin for global consumption. Having committed the horrendous acts they did on Saturday, they will now try to position themsleves as being the reasonable party wanting peace and in the context of likely civilian casualties in Gaza will try (probably succcessfully) to turn public opinion in the rest of the world.
I also think, as with Russia, there's an element of trolling for example with Hamas "warning" civilians in Ashkelon - I don't think that is sincere I think it is both mimicking Israel's warnings to civilians and an attempt to move what is happening now from the frame of what caused it, which I think may be successful.
QuoteDifficult to see a group tasked with taking hostages end up decapitating babies. Could they possibly have been medicated with anxiety-lowering medication, gang war style?
Not specifically on that, which is awful - but it may also have not all been Hamas. The initial attack and the destruction of the border fence at various points was but, from Islamic Jihad, say, weren't aware of that plan - but I imagine they had people going through the border fence once it was open (particularly once it was becoming clear that the IDF was nowhere near and wasn't responding). There were probably loads and loads of others. It's like a riot - there may be an organised core starting things but once it's going it isn't just them.
Yeah, but there are logistical limitations there. Ruthless murderers, rapists and looters don't just stand arund a fence waiting for it to drop. And if, like you say, it was just some dudes taking an opportunity what does that say about the general dude in the area?
Quote from: Threviel on October 10, 2023, 02:03:02 PMDifficult to see a group tasked with taking hostages end up decapitating babies. Could they possibly have been medicated with anxiety-lowering medication, gang war style?
I've been avoiding exploring detailed evidence of the massacres. Is the decapitation of babies an established fact or still in the category of "early reports during a conflict that may or may not turn out to be true"?
Quote from: Jacob on October 10, 2023, 01:54:48 PMGood points.
So maybe Hamas - or the decision makers within Hamas who organized the attack - thought "this will be a daring and impressive strike, and we'll get hostages that we can use for leverage" - and either they didn't appreciate how the massacre part of the action would change perception, or the massacre part weren't planned but happened somewhat spontaneously.
If so, then for Israel the main objective at this point is to draw a hard line and make the consequences so severe that Hamas or any other actors do not engage in such acts again. There doesn't really need to be any further goals or plan beyond massive reprisal on the theory that Hamas - and Palestinians in general - will learn "not to do this again" even if they build up the capability to (which Israel will do its best destroy).
Does that sound about right?
I don't follow your logic. How does massive reprisal accomplish anything other than ensuring that there will be further reprisals against Israel well into the future.
I understand the basic political and emotional need to lash out - but that is not what your analysis is based on.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2023, 01:07:27 PMOk, but isn't that the same mechanism by which the US displaced much of its Indigenous population?
No it's not remotely the same mechanism.
Take the example of Hebron. There is a Jewish community there now of a few hundred people in a settlement recognized by the state. Are they colonists? Arguably so - Hebron is part of the territories occupied in Israel in the 67 war. But hardly "cowboys and Indians" when compared to the large urban population of Hebron.
The settlement is not the first Jewish community there though. There was a significant Jewish presence in Hebron in the Ottoman period, tracing back for many centuries. What happened to them? There was a massacre in the 20s and another in the 30s. In 1948 the Jordanians took over and forbid all Jews from the land. Does that make the Jordanians the colonial cowboys in this scenario?
Or does the analogy just not work because the situations are not really analogous.
Quote from: Jacob on October 10, 2023, 02:21:56 PMI've been avoiding exploring detailed evidence of the massacres. Is the decapitation of babies an established fact or still in the category of "early reports during a conflict that may or may not turn out to be true"?
Yeah. I've read some articles but I've avoided videos. I'm very uncomfortable with some of what's being shared.
I'm not sure. I feel like it's maybe something you should do to read and be informed even of the most upsetting facts - not least because I sort of have opinions. And maybe the traditional media doesn't fully capture the horror of the attacks, so maybe I shouldn't look away. But I also think they handle those videos and details in a better way both confirming it but also pixelating, speaking to families first etc.
QuoteYeah, but there are logistical limitations there. Ruthless murderers, rapists and looters don't just stand arund a fence waiting for it to drop. And if, like you say, it was just some dudes taking an opportunity what does that say about the general dude in the area?
Yeah - also other groups. From what I've read it took about six hours for the IDF to respond and Gaza's tiny so I'm not so sure the logistics was a limit.
The flag store was out of Israel flags. Looking at Amazon, but they'd all take a week or more to get delivered. :(
The Israelis will do their utmost to get the hostages out. I am hearing that the US have, or are about to deploy, special forces specializing in this very thing. It will be difficult but they'll do what they can. If there's one thing about the Israeli mentality it's they don't sacrifice their own. Last time Hamas took a hostage, a soldier named Gilad Shalit, Israel ended up trading 1,000 terrorists to get him back. That's what Hamas is counting. The more hostages they have the better bargaining position they'll be in
Plus there are Americans among the hostages too, hence U.S. involvement. If there were no hostages, Gaza would be an apocalyptic wasteland by now. It probably will end up that way.
Unfortunately the decapitated babies claim has been republished in Times of Israel, Al Jazeera, and in official statements by the IDF. Whilst I have chosen not to view them, there are currently some real bad subreddits on reddit that apparently have some pictures as well.
Quote from: Josephus on October 10, 2023, 02:52:21 PMThe Israelis will do their utmost to get the hostages out. I am hearing that the US have, or are about to deploy, special forces specializing in this very thing. It will be difficult but they'll do what they can. If there's one thing about the Israeli mentality it's they don't sacrifice their own. Last time Hamas took a hostage, a soldier named Gilad Shalit, Israel ended up trading 1,000 terrorists to get him back. That's what Hamas is counting. The more hostages they have the better bargaining position they'll be in
Plus there are Americans among the hostages too, hence U.S. involvement. If there were no hostages, Gaza would be an apocalyptic wasteland by now. It probably will end up that way.
The issue with this line of thinking--when Israel made that trade it was over a relatively small border skirmish in which I think 5 Israeli soldiers were taken (4 of them post-mortem, so only 1 alive.)
In the current situation Israel is clearly planning a ground invasion, and is phrasing this--and in fact has declared this, as a full war, with implications for Israel's survival as a state being referenced by Israel's leaders (obviously there is hyperbole there, but this is the language they are using.)
When the situation is at a much lower level of intensity making a hostage trade is possible, but I think Israeli war planners have largely just decided to plan as though the hostages are already dead. They certainly have teams seeing if there is a way to get them, but it won't determine their military actions.
Quote from: Jacob on October 10, 2023, 02:21:56 PMQuote from: Threviel on October 10, 2023, 02:03:02 PMDifficult to see a group tasked with taking hostages end up decapitating babies. Could they possibly have been medicated with anxiety-lowering medication, gang war style?
I've been avoiding exploring detailed evidence of the massacres. Is the decapitation of babies an established fact or still in the category of "early reports during a conflict that may or may not turn out to be true"?
https://www.businessinsider.com/idf-says-hamas-decapitated-babies-in-israel-2023-10?r=US&IR=T (https://www.businessinsider.com/idf-says-hamas-decapitated-babies-in-israel-2023-10?r=US&IR=T)
IDF found them in a Kibbutz close to the border, which fits the "dudes taking an opportunity" view which is damn dark. People waking up, eating breakfast, going about their normal day routine, getting an opportunity to kill Israelis, decapitating some babies, having a milkshake.
It's just not believable that there are so well organised groups of psychos that can do that at the drop of a hat. I choose to believe that it must have been organised, that perhaps it got out of hand, but still that it was organised.
Quote from: Barrister on October 10, 2023, 02:40:33 PMThe flag store was out of Israel flags. Looking at Amazon, but they'd all take a week or more to get delivered. :(
I wouldn't dare display an Israeli flag in Sweden.
Quote from: The Brain on October 10, 2023, 03:06:26 PMQuote from: Barrister on October 10, 2023, 02:40:33 PMThe flag store was out of Israel flags. Looking at Amazon, but they'd all take a week or more to get delivered. :(
I wouldn't dare display an Israeli flag in Sweden.
I considered that. But anyone doesn't like it, fuck 'em.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2023, 02:28:13 PMI don't follow your logic. How does massive reprisal accomplish anything other than ensuring that there will be further reprisals against Israel well into the future.
The logic is that if Israel hits them hard enough, they'll think twice about doing it again.
Whether that logic holds up in the long term or whether it escalates the cycle of violence is another question. But the fundamental logic is one of deterrence based on overwhelming and destructive violence in response to attacks.
Personally I believe that ultimately Hamas - or successor organizations if Hamas is eradicated - are going to be willing and able to keep going in the face of anything Israel is able and willing to do.
QuoteI understand the basic political and emotional need to lash out - but that is not what your analysis is based on.
Yeah I understand the need.
Mainly I was trying to see if there's a particular logic or direction to the Israeli response. As I said, at the moment it seems to be "massive retaliation to destroy capabilities and deter future attacks".
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 10, 2023, 02:53:01 PMUnfortunately the decapitated babies claim has been republished in Times of Israel, Al Jazeera, and in official statements by the IDF. Whilst I have chosen not to view them, there are currently some real bad subreddits on reddit that apparently have some pictures as well.
That's fucking grim :(
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2023, 12:24:31 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2023, 12:13:19 PMIs the reverse true? Are Palestinian actions the cause of the rise of the far-right in Israel?
It is an interesting question. I think the peace process in the 80s was more of a causal factor. It was a right wing extremist who assassinated the Israeli PM in response to Israel coming close to finding a resolution with the Palestinians.
You'd think the constant rocket attacks, suicide bombings, armed gunmen and casual murder would harden the hearts of the Israelis. Nope, it was the prospect of the peace in the 1980's that turned them to the right. Oh those perfidious Jews!
Quote from: Jacob on October 10, 2023, 03:11:10 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 10, 2023, 02:53:01 PMUnfortunately the decapitated babies claim has been republished in Times of Israel, Al Jazeera, and in official statements by the IDF. Whilst I have chosen not to view them, there are currently some real bad subreddits on reddit that apparently have some pictures as well.
That's fucking grim :(
It's not the first time they've done that.
Quote from: Jacob on October 10, 2023, 03:09:34 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2023, 02:28:13 PMI don't follow your logic. How does massive reprisal accomplish anything other than ensuring that there will be further reprisals against Israel well into the future.
The logic is that if Israel hits them hard enough, they'll think twice about doing it again.
Whether that logic holds up in the long term or whether it escalates the cycle of violence is another question. But the fundamental logic is one of deterrence based on overwhelming and destructive violence in response to attacks.
Personally I believe that ultimately Hamas - or successor organizations if Hamas is eradicated - are going to be willing and able to keep going in the face of anything Israel is able and willing to do.
So I deal with the principle of deterrence all the time in the context of criminal law.
Deterrence is quite obviously a less than perfect solution. Criminals frequently commit crimes even knowing the risk of going to jail is high.
But the absence of deterrence is even worse. If criminals know they can commit a crime without consequence, the rate of that crime shoots up.
This often comes up with shoplifting. Sometimes stores go "it's only stuff, we don't want our employees to be hurt, so let's not try to physically stop shoplifters". Which is a perfectly rational analysis. Problem is if/when it becomes common knowledge that a given store won't stop shoplifters that store becomes a magnet for shoplifters.
So some level of Israeli deterrence is almost certainly necessary and required - even though nobody is under any illusions it will stop all future attacks.
FWIW in regard to the earlier comment that Hamas is going to "shift" opinion its way over the Israeli bombings....I don't think so at all. I won't pretend I'm working with aggregate data or anything, but across Reddit, X nee Twitter, Facebook etc, I have never seen so many English speakers posting that they want to see "Gaza destroyed", cheering on images of apartment blocs blowing up etc.
I have even seen in some leftist subs on reddit people posting "I always supported Palestine, but now I want them all to die." The thing is, the sort of brutality, ISIS type brutality, that Hamas engaged in is incredibly emotion-driving.
Westerners have largely learned to "block out" cities being bombed. For most millennials who grew up on Iraq and Afghanistan, and Gen Z, they have been seeing nondescript images of third world countries being blown up their entire lives. It just doesn't resonate.
Pictures of vibrant young people being hacked apart by monsters, babies being beheaded, dead women's bodies being paraded around while Gazans cheer on gleefully--that is a picture of barbarism many Westerners were isolated from and it will not be easy for them to forget. And most are feeling little to no sympathy for the same Gazans (in their mind) who were cheering on a few days ago crying now because their house is gone.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 10, 2023, 02:53:01 PMUnfortunately the decapitated babies claim has been republished in Times of Israel, Al Jazeera, and in official statements by the IDF. Whilst I have chosen not to view them, there are currently some real bad subreddits on reddit that apparently have some pictures as well.
The really gnarly stuff was from a couple of days ago on twitter (like that German rave festival chick being terrorized before her desecrated body was shown laid out in Gaza street being spat on, captives being tortured and executed, grannies set on fire, etc) but that's thankfully been cleaned up. Seeing (and hearing) these clips is harrowing so don't go looking for them. They'll be seared into my mind, probably for as long as I will live.
Yep, I haven't seen any of them. I saw enough bad stuff earlier in my life in terms of battlefield images and videos etc that I have zero desire to add more of that to my brain. I know enough to know what it looks like and don't need to see more of it.
Yeah, I've seen enough crime scene photos from work - I don't need to seek that shit out on my own time.
Quote from: PJL on October 10, 2023, 11:46:57 AMIt's not just an Israel/Palestine thing IMO. I've come to the conclusion that a third of humanity are just nasty, plain & simple. You may quibble on the exact numbers, but I reckon that figure is a good ballpark estimate.
That third of humanity is all on X now.
Israeli government now acknowledging there were warnings from Egyptian intelligence - also being reported by other Israeli media.
Also reports in Israeli and American media that Israeli intelligence made some warnings to Netanyahu and his government, but these were dismissed as being part of/reflective of the "protest movement" - a reminder that Netanyahu had been attacking senior Shin Bet and military figures for warning that the protests were dividing Israelis in a way that was dangerous for Israel's security. Still to see if that is picked up more widely.
Quote from: Legbiter on October 10, 2023, 03:46:33 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 10, 2023, 02:53:01 PMUnfortunately the decapitated babies claim has been republished in Times of Israel, Al Jazeera, and in official statements by the IDF. Whilst I have chosen not to view them, there are currently some real bad subreddits on reddit that apparently have some pictures as well.
The really gnarly stuff was from a couple of days ago on twitter (like that German rave festival chick being terrorized before her desecrated body was shown laid out in Gaza street being spat on, captives being tortured and executed, grannies set on fire, etc) but that's thankfully been cleaned up. Seeing (and hearing) these clips is harrowing so don't go looking for them. They'll be seared into my mind, probably for as long as I will live.
Jesus that is horrifying.
Somehow I doubt the Israelis will be interested in trading 1,000 terrorists for 1 captured Israeli, as was alluded to earlier.
I was listening to Lex Fridman podcast a month or so ago. He first had an episode with Bibi, and then had an episode with some Palestinian activist. For a while he really had me thinking, making me reconsider what I thought about the conflict. Then the conversation went to terrorism, and he went into the usual spiel about the hypocrisy of calling Palestinians terrorists for doing the same things that are accepted by others.
At no point did I hear him mention deliberate attacking of civilians at all, you know, the kind of thing that you may be called a terrorist for. Deliberately attacking Israeli civilians and killing anyone that for some reason happens to be defenseless is something Palestinians have done for at least decades. That can earn you a bad rep in the West. At that point I stopped listening and felt a little stupid for allowing myself to be somewhat taken in by him at first. Not surprisingly, his Twitter messages in the last few days seem to be exactly what you would expect: heavy on blasting Israel, avoiding any acknowledgement of the barbaric nature of what was done to invite that, and even mocking people for denouncing the Hamas attack.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 10, 2023, 11:46:42 AMIt is actually possible Hamas is less corrupt than Fatah. Fatah and the PLO on a percentile scale, are basically at "100%" corruption. So even if Hamas is "only" 75% corrupt, that is still a significant amount less corrupt than Fatah. Now, Hamas is also a violent terrorist group, which definitely outweighs any positives in their being less corrupt administratively.
I have long abandoned trying to argue that point with any pro-Palestinian, or anyone with Palestinian relatives. It's too sensible.
But the point is moot. Having had one free election in 17 years and making one bad choice among two bad ones, it's hard to hold everyone there guilty. They chose war at that point in time instead of the peace process and it cost them dearly. Doesn't mean they would make the same choice 5, 10, 15 years after that. Americans didn't perpetually elect the GOP after 2000 (well, not everywhere).
I guess it would also be really hard to quantify actual support today with all the purges the Hamas did toward the supporters of Fatah. Many survivors fled afterward. Those that remain are either loyal or disinclined to oppose the Hamas, even verbally.
They live sent a granny being killed on her own private Facebook feed...
It's just so grim. I've been avoiding gruesome media, but the texts are grim enough. I have trouble finding historical examples of this kind of shit. It's Assyria level barbarism.
The Beirut summer 1982 siege could be a useful guide to what might happen now.
Then the Israeli's cornered a Palestinian terrorist group in a heavily built up urban area up against the sea. IIRC West Beirut's population was under a 10th of Gaza's and by area similarly smaller, I think it took over a month for the siege to be ended.
So I can see Palestinians killed toping 10,000, perhaps as high as 50,000 if the Israelis try to end it with occupation.
And of course Arafat and the PLO were people you or some intermediators Could negotiate with, Hamas in contrast will not go into exile, so I expect them to expire in the rubble surround by mountains of corpses.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 10, 2023, 03:26:29 PMYou'd think the constant rocket attacks, suicide bombings, armed gunmen and casual murder would harden the hearts of the Israelis. Nope, it was the prospect of the peace in the 1980's that turned them to the right.
It must be nice to view the world in black and white like you do. Bad guys, good guys. Cobra on one side, GI Joes on the other. Everything is so clear, so simple. No nuance, no grey areas. Palestinians, all bad, Israelis, all good.
Quote from: mongers on October 10, 2023, 04:46:46 PMThe Beirut summer 1982 siege could be a useful guide to what might happen now.
Then the Israeli's cornered a Palestinian terrorist group in a heavily built up urban area up against the sea. IIRC West Beirut's population was under a 10th of Gaza's and by area similarly smaller, I think it took over a month for the siege to be ended.
So I can see Palestinians killed toping 10,000, perhaps as high as 50,000 if the Israelis try to end it with occupation.
And of course Arafat and the PLO were people you or some intermediators Could negotiate with, Hamas in contrast will not go into exile, so I expect them to expire in the rubble surround by mountains of corpses.
Didn't Israel end this conflict in 2000 and go back in 2006 for a second round?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2023, 12:31:24 PMHamas cannot have been hoping for a hostage swap given their brutality. They must have done this hoping to create the reaction from Israel that is now coming. If it was not already an eternal conflict, it will be now.
Someone I know from another board has Palestinian family and lived there for a while.
I've never been on very good terms with the guy, but I respect him and his opinions on the conflict, without agreeing entirely with his vision.
His opinion on Hamas is that it's a classic terror group move: they don't care what you or I think about them, they don't care what Jordan and Egypt think. What they hope to achieve is to convince Israel that the price they pay to occupy Palestine is so high that it ain't worth it. Eventually, they will have no choice but to withdraw from a huge part of the occupied territories because their civilian population will have had enough.
I do not believe Hamas has any realistic chance of seeing this happening. Israel will reduce the entire Gaza strip to rubble before they cede a contiguous territory to Palestinians in the West Bank.
Quote from: viper37 on October 10, 2023, 05:06:03 PMIt must be nice to view the world in black and white like you do. Bad guys, good guys. Cobra on one side, GI Joes on the other. Everything is so clear, so simple. No nuance, no grey areas. Palestinians, all bad, Israelis, all good.
I thought one of the Spanish EUOT members put it rather elegantly. To sum up:
Ones view children's potential life. The others see their potential death ("martyred" or beheaded).
Quote from: mongers on October 10, 2023, 04:46:46 PMThe Beirut summer 1982 siege could be a useful guide to what might happen now.
Then the Israeli's cornered a Palestinian terrorist group in a heavily built up urban area up against the sea. IIRC West Beirut's population was under a 10th of Gaza's and by area similarly smaller, I think it took over a month for the siege to be ended.
So I can see Palestinians killed toping 10,000, perhaps as high as 50,000 if the Israelis try to end it with occupation.
And of course Arafat and the PLO were people you or some intermediators Could negotiate with, Hamas in contrast will not go into exile, so I expect them to expire in the rubble surround by mountains of corpses.
It could resemble the Battle of Mosul as well, when the coalition took out ISIS's last major urban stronghold in Iraq. Over a month of fighting, I think a couple thousand coalition dead and several tens of thousands of ISIS dead.
A lot will depend on the nature of the urban fighting. If it is "street by street, with advances behind lines of artillery fire" the Gazan casualties will be enormous.
Quote from: viper37 on October 10, 2023, 05:17:25 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2023, 12:31:24 PMHamas cannot have been hoping for a hostage swap given their brutality. They must have done this hoping to create the reaction from Israel that is now coming. If it was not already an eternal conflict, it will be now.
Someone I know from another board has Palestinian family and lived there for a while.
I've never been on very good terms with the guy, but I respect him and his opinions on the conflict, without agreeing entirely with his vision.
His opinion on Hamas is that it's a classic terror group move: they don't care what you or I think about them, they don't care what Jordan and Egypt think. What they hope to achieve is to convince Israel that the price they pay to occupy Palestine is so high that it ain't worth it. Eventually, they will have no choice but to withdraw from a huge part of the occupied territories because their civilian population will have had enough.
I do not believe Hamas has any realistic chance of seeing this happening. Israel will reduce the entire Gaza strip to rubble before they cede a contiguous territory to Palestinians in the West Bank.
I think this is how many 20th century terror groups or guerrillas see things—but it is like a former Vietnamese insurgent leader told Palestinian militants who went to him for advice in the 70s and 80s said: "The French and Americans went home. The Israelis are at home, they will never leave." It is a totally different situation when you're fighting a foreign occupation vs fighting for a shared geography with a people who live right there with you.
This is a core misunderstanding many Palestinians have to this day. They really believe some day they can make the Jews leave—and I mean leave from the river to the sea. They don't fully accept the Jews are never leaving.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 10, 2023, 09:58:16 AMThe idea that they were "always there" is silly, but the idea that means they have less right to be there than the Arabs is confusing and dumb. The Ottoman Empire had 900,000 Jews, almost none of whom were ever going to be allowed to remain in Islamist or Arab Nationalist post-Ottoman states.
That's not a really relevant statistic, since the area of conflict is Palestine.
There was likely many more Arabs under Ottoman rule in the Ottoman Empire than Jews.
Since the Empire ceased to exists in 1922, there were a little over 80 000 Jews living in Ottoman Palestine:
Jewish and non Jewish population of Palestine (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-and-non-jewish-population-of-israel-palestine-1517-present) 1517-present.
Up until the creation of Israel, there were always more Arabs than Jews in Palestine.
I don't think any one people can claim to have an exclusive right to the territory, or more right than the other.
Quote from: Barrister on October 10, 2023, 03:31:26 PMSo I deal with the principle of deterrence all the time in the context of criminal law.
Deterrence is quite obviously a less than perfect solution. Criminals frequently commit crimes even knowing the risk of going to jail is high.
But the absence of deterrence is even worse. If criminals know they can commit a crime without consequence, the rate of that crime shoots up.
This often comes up with shoplifting. Sometimes stores go "it's only stuff, we don't want our employees to be hurt, so let's not try to physically stop shoplifters". Which is a perfectly rational analysis. Problem is if/when it becomes common knowledge that a given store won't stop shoplifters that store becomes a magnet for shoplifters.
So some level of Israeli deterrence is almost certainly necessary and required - even though nobody is under any illusions it will stop all future attacks.
Deterrence of this type only works when it is targeted at the individuals committing the acts. When it is extended to collective punishment it fails as a deterrent and can only suppress in the short term. Why would I behave better if the punishment can fall on me for something someone I don't know does? That only leads to resentment.
I hope Israel deals with every single person who committed, enabled or supported these acts, but the more widespread the reprisals the less of a deterrent it is and the more it is a breeding ground for future terrorism.
Quote from: viper37 on October 10, 2023, 05:17:25 PMHis opinion on Hamas is that it's a classic terror group move: they don't care what you or I think about them, they don't care what Jordan and Egypt think. What they hope to achieve is to convince Israel that the price they pay to occupy Palestine is so high that it ain't worth it. Eventually, they will have no choice but to withdraw from a huge part of the occupied territories because their civilian population will have had enough.
With respect, that is failing to understand what Hamas is about. They don't make any distinction between occupied or non-occupied territories. Right now they are attacking lands originally assigned to Israel in the UN partition plan. Their objective is and always has been the complete extirpation of Israel and its replacement by an Islamic theocracy that would either entirely Judenrein or with the few surviving Jews reduced to dhimmi-hood.
Hamas is not Fatah. The latter has done awful things but has been willing to contemplate coexistence with some kind of Jewish state. Not so for Hamas.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 10, 2023, 05:36:30 PMWith respect, that is failing to understand what Hamas is about. They don't make any distinction between occupied or non-occupied territories. Right now they are attacking lands originally assigned to Israel in the UN partition plan. Their objective is and always has been the complete extirpation of Israel and its replacement by an Islamic theocracy that would either entirely Judenrein or with the few surviving Jews reduced to dhimmi-hood.
Like I said, I disagree with his opinion.
I'm in agreement with you over Hamas objective. I think their recent discourse over accepting a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders is just stalling for them. I don't believe, even if Israel granted them that, that they would settle for this.
What I do believe however is that Hamas could have been marginalized long ago.
Not that a state in strictly the 1967 borders could have been a solution, but it
should have been a basis of negotiation at the very least, instead of always proposing a patchwork of isolated lands here and there in the West Bank, always reducing them in size.
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 10, 2023, 04:19:11 PMJesus that is horrifying.
Somehow I doubt the Israelis will be interested in trading 1,000 terrorists for 1 captured Israeli, as was alluded to earlier.
It's vastly more horrific on telegram apparently.
Quote from: viper37 on October 10, 2023, 05:29:51 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 10, 2023, 09:58:16 AMThe idea that they were "always there" is silly, but the idea that means they have less right to be there than the Arabs is confusing and dumb. The Ottoman Empire had 900,000 Jews, almost none of whom were ever going to be allowed to remain in Islamist or Arab Nationalist post-Ottoman states.
That's not a really relevant statistic, since the area of conflict is Palestine.
There was likely many more Arabs under Ottoman rule in the Ottoman Empire than Jews.
Since the Empire ceased to exists in 1922, there were a little over 80 000 Jews living in Ottoman Palestine:
Jewish and non Jewish population of Palestine (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-and-non-jewish-population-of-israel-palestine-1517-present) 1517-present.
Up until the creation of Israel, there were always more Arabs than Jews in Palestine.
I don't think any one people can claim to have an exclusive right to the territory, or more right than the other.
I addressed all of this in previous posts—where the point I made was: 900,000 Jews were expelled or fled serious Arab abuse throughout the former Ottoman territories. That is before even factoring in the Holocaust refugees. As Sheilbh has noted, both Britain and America, among a number of other countries, were hostile to taking them in.
Were they just supposed to fuck off and die? Or did it maybe make some logical sense to go to Palestine where Jews had (legally under the laws of the Ottomans) bought up large tracts of land for settlement?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 10, 2023, 06:59:17 PMI addressed all of this in previous posts—where the point I made was: 900,000 Jews were expelled or fled serious Arab abuse throughout the former Ottoman territories. That is before even factoring in the Holocaust refugees. As Sheilbh has noted, both Britain and America, among a number of other countries, were hostile to taking them in.
Were they just supposed to fuck off and die? Or did it maybe make some logical sense to go to Palestine where Jews had (legally under the laws of the Ottomans) bought up large tracts of land for settlement?
I missed that post. So, you're talking of all the Jews expelled from the Arab territories following the creation of Israel.
I agree Israel is their home, they had nowhere else to go. Kinda hard to go in Europe after what had just happened.
But it's this rampant idea often propagated that Palestinians don't have any right to a country in the Middle East that I disagree with. This idea often expressed that the refugees should move to Jordan or Syria.
If a Syrian Jew belongs in Israel now, the descendant of a Syrian Arab family who long ago emigrated to what is now Palestine/Israel belongs there just as much. They deserve their own autonomous state with viable borders.
The people of Gaza are mainly the descendants of the refugees who were expelled of fled the IDF in the wake of the 1948 war. Israel has always been opposed to any right of return, while at the same time keeping colonization ongoing in the West Bank creating more refugees and pushing the narrative of an empty land pre-1948, or of no Palestinian nation, as if only Zionism was a valid nationalism.
I disagree with these world views expressed by the Raz and Siegebreakers of this world.
Quote from: viper37 on October 10, 2023, 07:14:37 PMI disagree with these world views expressed by the Raz and Siegebreakers of this world.
I say "both sides". It's like the Allies and the Germans in WW2. The Allies weren't perfect but they were better than the Germans.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 10, 2023, 02:29:51 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2023, 01:07:27 PMOk, but isn't that the same mechanism by which the US displaced much of its Indigenous population?
No it's not remotely the same mechanism.
Take the example of Hebron. There is a Jewish community there now of a few hundred people in a settlement recognized by the state. Are they colonists? Arguably so - Hebron is part of the territories occupied in Israel in the 67 war. But hardly "cowboys and Indians" when compared to the large urban population of Hebron.
The settlement is not the first Jewish community there though. There was a significant Jewish presence in Hebron in the Ottoman period, tracing back for many centuries. What happened to them? There was a massacre in the 20s and another in the 30s. In 1948 the Jordanians took over and forbid all Jews from the land. Does that make the Jordanians the colonial cowboys in this scenario?
Or does the analogy just not work because the situations are not really analogous.
Your reduction of American colonialism to cowboys and Indians is absurd.
As to your other points. You have justified forcing Palestinians off their land because war and now because of some at least partial occupation going all the way back to the 20s. Now what about the hundreds of years the Palestinians were there?
Quote from: viper37 on October 10, 2023, 05:17:25 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2023, 12:31:24 PMHamas cannot have been hoping for a hostage swap given their brutality. They must have done this hoping to create the reaction from Israel that is now coming. If it was not already an eternal conflict, it will be now.
Someone I know from another board has Palestinian family and lived there for a while.
I've never been on very good terms with the guy, but I respect him and his opinions on the conflict, without agreeing entirely with his vision.
His opinion on Hamas is that it's a classic terror group move: they don't care what you or I think about them, they don't care what Jordan and Egypt think. What they hope to achieve is to convince Israel that the price they pay to occupy Palestine is so high that it ain't worth it. Eventually, they will have no choice but to withdraw from a huge part of the occupied territories because their civilian population will have had enough.
I do not believe Hamas has any realistic chance of seeing this happening. Israel will reduce the entire Gaza strip to rubble before they cede a contiguous territory to Palestinians in the West Bank.
Here is an opinion piece in the Globe I think will internet you. The author makes a similar point to yours and an early point Otto made about the aims of Hamas. It also goes into some detail regarding why Israel's policies and response make no sense and guarantees endless conflict. I have gifted it so no need to worry about the paywall
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/gift/519974dc5e28f762a87fb14c1570523f4fb873adfcfcb945043907ccc3c41650/LII7G6N6CFC6JD3FLXAAXVEVMM/
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 09, 2023, 10:18:50 AMAlso Ynet is reporting that the head of Egyptian intelligence warned Netanyahu ten days before the attack that "something unusual, a terrible operation" was about to take place around Gaza and this was dismissed by Netanyahu who, reportedly, said that the IDF was focused on fighting terror in the West Bank where attacks were actively being carried out.
Netanyahu's office has called the report "a lie".
Again I think the mood of national unity is going to be short-lived. It will be political very quickly (in a way I think this is possibly, like the protests, a sign of the health of Israeli democracy despite all the concerning stuff). We've already seen Haaretz explicitly blame Netanyahu. I don't think this will be the end of reports about how and why the focus was on the West Bank. At the same time Netanyahu and his coalition were attacking the security apparatus as being infected by the left because of Shin Bet, Mossad etc leaders saying the divisions over judicial reforms were weakening Israeli society and security - they were not just causing the protests but also reservists refusing call ups. I think the coalition will return to that line of attack.
I suspect this means we might not see a national unity government - in practical terms I think this war will be prosecuted by what, reportedly, Netanyahu considers to be a dysfunctional security cabinet which includes extremists on the far right. I think that is concerning. I also think Israeli politics will be very combustible as these types of stories come forward. From the outside I can't see how Netanyahu can survive, but I think we've all thought that before - but I think this may entrench further and deeper which is not good either.
Times of Israel says it's true
https://twitter.com/allenanalysis/status/1711849301842760034
https://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-intelligence-official-says-israel-ignored-repeated-warnings-of-something-big/
QuoteIsraeli media reports now confirm that the government did receive clear warnings from Egyptian intelligence about the imminent attack that occurred on October 7.
Initially, the Prime Minister's office issued a flat denial after the first report, but then they reversed their stance and admitted to receiving these warnings.
As the conflict between Hamas militants and Israel enters its third day, reports indicate that Israeli intelligence agencies may have been caught off guard.
Egyptian intelligence officials reportedly warned Israel about a significant threat, but Israeli security agencies were said to have misinterpreted the situation.
An Egyptian intelligence official stated that Israeli officials were primarily focused on the West Bank and underestimated the threat from Gaza.
The Israeli administration under Benjamin Netanyahu had been preoccupied with addressing violence in the West Bank, often linked to tensions with Jewish settlers.
This revelation raises questions about the government's initial response to the warnings and how they handled the situation.
One thing this means is that Nethanau will try to prolong the conflict in time and high intensity as long as possible to thus delay any official inquiries into this and his role in it.
Apparently Israel has warned Egypt that any aid coming from that direction will be bombed. They are really not fucking around this time.
Quote from: Jacob on October 10, 2023, 03:11:10 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 10, 2023, 02:53:01 PMUnfortunately the decapitated babies claim has been republished in Times of Israel, Al Jazeera, and in official statements by the IDF. Whilst I have chosen not to view them, there are currently some real bad subreddits on reddit that apparently have some pictures as well.
That's fucking grim :(
Just on this - it may still be true. But Sky News had a section just now which was running through today's papers, many of which lead with this story.
Sky explained they're not covering it as their reporters have not confirmed it, they've asked the IDF to confirm it three times (as the story was sourced to "a soldier") and they haven't. They're now explaining that what the IDF has said is that it doesn't have such confirmation.
Which I thought was interesting as it seems that may not be confirmed, yet, despite being a big story covered widely. Slight reminder to handle with care at this stage. Also I think it's something media should do a lot more which is explain their process.
As I said very early on, it wouldn't surprise me if the Israelis knew about this beforehand. This conflict ticks a lot of boxes in Netanyahu's "things I need to do" list.
1. Unity government
2. Popular support
3. World permission to exterminate Hamas with extreme prejudice
An inquiry may come 2-3 years down the road, but by that point other things would have happened. Bibi is a lot like Trump that way, shit doesn't stick.
Egyptian intelligence warned Israel, but it seems they misunderstood or perhaps rather underestimated their enemy. Victory disease is nothing new.
Concerning decapitated babies: Tweet from Ryan Evans linking another tweet by Margot Haddad in French that seemingly confirms the story (https://twitter.com/EvansRyan202/status/1711872890700779528).
It doesn't really matter if they decapitated babies. Sure, it's horrible beyond measure to decapitate babies, but it's also horrible beyond measure to kill babies without decapitating them. The discussion about the veracity of the beheadings take away from the fact that they killed babies, the method matters little.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2023, 09:11:21 PMYou have justified forcing Palestinians off their land because war and now because of some at least partial occupation going all the way back to the 20s.
I'm quite certain I haven't justified anything or sought to justify anything.
Quote from: Josephus on October 11, 2023, 06:37:35 AMAs I said very early on, it wouldn't surprise me if the Israelis knew about this beforehand. This conflict ticks a lot of boxes in Netanyahu's "things I need to do" list.
1. Unity government
2. Popular support
3. World permission to exterminate Hamas with extreme prejudice
An inquiry may come 2-3 years down the road, but by that point other things would have happened. Bibi is a lot like Trump that way, shit doesn't stick.
As I mentioned, my worry is that now the war against Hamas will need to be extended ad infinitum. Otherwise Bibi may get another reason to be sent to prison for, definitely to lose power for and then risk going to prison for his other stuff. He already showed himself perfectly willing to wreck Israel to keep in power.
Reinforcing what we all know--the strikes on Gaza truly are unprecedented. I know it is easy to reduce the bombings to "background noise", because we are used to bombings over there, but there really has never been a bombing campaign of this nature ever before in this conflict.
UN is reporting 260,000 displaced.
IDF reporting indicates 2600+ strikes have been carried out, including 1300+ being multistory buildings (most of which we can presume were damaged beyond repair, based on the sort of strikes we are seeing.)
UN officials have indicated over 25,000 housing units have been permanently destroyed.
The complete blockade is also unprecedented.
Gaza's sole domestic power plant ran out of fuel over night, and with Israel's shutoff of electric transmission lines, that means there is no longer any central power generation in Gaza whatsoever. Hospital officials have said Gaza's hospitals may have a day or 2 of generator fuel left, after which they will have zero electricity whatsoever.
Generator usage is common in Gaza in general due to the frequency of short power interruptions, but fuel is also fully blockaded and is expected to be completely used up within a couple of days.
Israel has moved by all accounts over 100,000 troops, huge numbers of armor and APCs South to Gaza.
The nature of the large scale neighborhood "leveling" bombing on the near side of the wall inside Gaza makes me think at least some of this is IDF "making a hole" so they can eventually move a significant number of their ground forces into the other side of the wall without them being stuck in the middle of crowded streets (which are anathema to large troop formations due to all the avenues of attack.)
There has also been reports of massive bombing around Gaza's coastal and port facilities--which many observers believe show signs of being a preparation for some sort of amphibious landing as well.
Some of the military people on Twitter are speculating that they're planning to roll up the Gaza strip North to South to push people towards Egypt.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 11, 2023, 08:05:13 AMSome of the military people on Twitter are speculating that they're planning to roll up the Gaza strip North to South to push people towards Egypt.
Egypt won't have them.
Quote from: mongers on October 11, 2023, 08:29:16 AMQuote from: Hamilcar on October 11, 2023, 08:05:13 AMSome of the military people on Twitter are speculating that they're planning to roll up the Gaza strip North to South to push people towards Egypt.
Egypt won't have them.
Force them. They were on the starting grid for that mess.
yeah, I really feel for the ordinary Palestinians in Gaza and especially the children. Yes, we hear about the beheaded babies, and I feel for all Israelis too. In fact, my former editor at a Jewish paper I used to work in, just found out his 30-ish niece is among the dead. So it's horrible all around. It doesn't matter who is to blame. Yes, Hamas is a stain on civilization, human animals. There attack has nothing to do with bringing a Palestinian state, and all to do with killing Jews. But the Israeli response is, and will continue to be just as terrible. They may not be beheading babies but as Threviel said, in the end there's gonna be a lot of dead children on both sides.
Egypt should do the right thing and open up their border. At least to women and children.
My take on the Israeli response is somewhat nuanced. If Israeli intends to reoccupy the strip, brutal as it is--it makes their bombing campaign more reasonable in my mind--there is no way to reoccupy Gaza peacefully and without destroying a lot of infrastructure.
I view this bombing campaign differently if it is purely retaliatory, I think that is a different moral weighting than when you're doing something that may be part of tactical necessity to soften up Hamas defenses (which have likely been continually built since 2007.)
If I was to critique Israel in the moment I would say I think there is no tactical requirement to starve out the Gazans, yes--in traditional siege warfare that is a primary tactic, and yes, Israel (like the United States, India and Turkey) is not a signatory to Geneva AP1, which forbids that sort of siege warfare, but it IMO is not necessary and there is a moral obligation not to impose so much human suffering on civilians unnecessarily.
Quote from: mongers on October 11, 2023, 08:29:16 AMQuote from: Hamilcar on October 11, 2023, 08:05:13 AMSome of the military people on Twitter are speculating that they're planning to roll up the Gaza strip North to South to push people towards Egypt.
Egypt won't have them.
America will pay. Maybe the Europeans will chip in.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 11, 2023, 08:39:22 AMMy take on the Israeli response is somewhat nuanced. If Israeli intends to reoccupy the strip, brutal as it is--it makes their bombing campaign more reasonable in my mind--there is no way to reoccupy Gaza peacefully and without destroying a lot of infrastructure.
I view this bombing campaign differently if it is purely retaliatory, I think that is a different moral weighting than when you're doing something that may be part of tactical necessity to soften up Hamas defenses (which have likely been continually built since 2007.)
If I was to critique Israel in the moment I would say I think there is no tactical requirement to starve out the Gazans, yes--in traditional siege warfare that is a primary tactic, and yes, Israel (like the United States, India and Turkey) is not a signatory to Geneva AP1, which forbids that sort of siege warfare, but it IMO is not necessary and there is a moral obligation not to impose so much human suffering on civilians unnecessarily.
Thanks for the summaries OVB.
My moral problem with the total siege is what is the point? Requiring unconditional surrender of Hamas and the populace? So what if they get it? It's not like Hamas won't stockpile their weapons anyhow and start guerilla warfare once the IDF is there.
Could it be an ethnic cleansing on the way? If, like OvB wrote, they plan to roll up Gaza from north to south, could it be that they plan to push everyone into Egypt?
Quote from: Threviel on October 11, 2023, 08:59:22 AMCould it be an ethnic cleansing on the way? If, like OvB wrote, they plan to roll up Gaza from north to south, could it be that they plan to push everyone into Egypt?
I think it was Hami that reported that, not Otto.
Quote from: mongers on October 11, 2023, 09:51:00 AMQuote from: Threviel on October 11, 2023, 08:59:22 AMCould it be an ethnic cleansing on the way? If, like OvB wrote, they plan to roll up Gaza from north to south, could it be that they plan to push everyone into Egypt?
I think it was Hami that reported that, not Otto.
My bad, sorry, Hami.
I was just thinking that the first order of business for an invasion ought to be to get control of the Egyptian border. That stops things from coming in/out and it gives the Egyptians alibi for not assisting the Palestinians.
That's if the goal is to get control and re-instate control. A north to south invasion doesn't really make sense in that context.
Of course, there might be logistical limitations, or something like that, that I'm unaware of that makes a north to south invasion necessary.
Where does Egypt stand? Do they keep their end of the prison walls closed because they want nothing to do with Palestinians as well, or are they doing it to create problems for Israel? It sounds like Egypt is on relatively good terms with Israel, but then forcing them to deal with refugee problem seems unwarranted. Does Israel really need Egypt back on its list of enemies?
Eygpt don't want anything to do with Hamas. They've only just got to grips with the Muslim Brothrrhood.
From what little I've read (unverified), suicide attacks in Egypt go down massively when they close the border with Gaza.
So I doubt they'll open them. Maybe to women and children, if someone else pays for them.
We should remember that the Palestinians are the second most disliked people in the Middle East. Absolutely no-one want them inside their borders.
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2023, 10:17:49 AMWhere does Egypt stand? Do they keep their end of the prison walls closed because they want nothing to do with Palestinians as well, or are they doing it to create problems for Israel? It sounds like Egypt is on relatively good terms with Israel, but then forcing them to deal with refugee problem seems unwarranted. Does Israel really need Egypt back on its list of enemies?
Egypt has largely not allowed significant people movements between Gaza and Egypt for years. Technically to cross over, before this all started, as a Palestinian you had to get a "pass" from Hamas, which was often sold for $4000 USD (a huge sum for Gazans.) You also were legally required to only be coming over for a visit with family or a limited trip. Now, just like any such system some Palestinians violate those rules and never go back to Gaza.
Otherwise, there are very limited circumstances where you can legally get permission to move from Gaza to Egypt, but it is very, very limited. As others have said, the primary reason for this is Egypt does not want a lot of Palestinians living in Egypt where they will be refugees primarily being the responsibility of the Egyptian state.
I think most Palestinians that get into Egypt are smuggled or they buy passes and then never cross back to Gaza, but Egypt has no interest in a "general" open border where Gazans can freely migrate.
Also, Egypt has historically helped Israel enforce the long running "blockade." In theory the blockade has always intended to only block materials that can be used to develop weapons or military capacity, but some technology and supplies that have both civil and military uses, are blocked as well. Egypt has helped enforce that by inspecting cargo going into Gaza and following Israel's rules on what is allowed in and isn't allowed in.
Anyone expecting Egypt to just help the Palestinians by opening their pockets or borders, that is not going to happen.
Though needs noting not everyone in Egypt will follow the government line- see the recent murders.
I expect the border guards will be corrupt as shit.
Yeah, I mean the blockade has never been perfect--otherwise Hamas would not have been able to amass such a huge arsenal since 2007. It has always been somewhat porous--which is kind of how the world works, border controls can almost always be bypassed by determined smugglers. One of the few exceptions has been North Korea, but they are aided by basically a giant militarized minefield called the DMZ separating them from South Korea. Most of DPRK's border "porosity" has been along its longer and less militarized border with China, however even that has never been easy to cross--the border with China is like 70% covered by the Yalu river, which is non-trivial for people to cross covertly and safely; and the tiny border with Russia has usually been tightly manned. In recent decades DPRK has done a lot of work to fully seal off the limited holes in its northern border so even a lot of that is shut down now.
But most the rest of the world you just don't see that level of shutting a border down, it is not normally feasible over big distances.
Massive incursions from Hezbollah across the norther border ongoing.
OvB - total aside here - my understanding is that there's non-trivial smuggling across the border between North Korea and China; people and goods.
Looks like the Northern situation is being described as a "mass drone infiltration" with air space warnings across Israel's north. Israel security is saying "some of the aircraft are carrying people" (which I don't even know what that means, maybe weird paraglider shit like Hamas did down South, not sure.)
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2023, 10:57:58 AMOvB - total aside here - my understanding is that there's non-trivial smuggling across the border between North Korea and China; people and goods.
There is, but apparently Kim got crazy about it during covid--he was reportedly beyond paranoia levels afraid of it, and he has done a lot to completely shut it off in the last 3.5 years.
Border controls being imperfect - true. You'll never completely stop smuggling.
But it helps a lot that Egyptian border guards are likely to be very underpaid, poorly controlled, and, very sympathetic to the Palestinian cause in general and probably to the broader idea of violence being necessary.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 11, 2023, 10:59:00 AMQuote from: Jacob on October 11, 2023, 10:57:58 AMOvB - total aside here - my understanding is that there's non-trivial smuggling across the border between North Korea and China; people and goods.
There is, but apparently Kim got crazy about it during covid--he was reportedly beyond paranoia levels afraid of it, and he has done a lot to completely shut it off in the last 3.5 years.
Yes. The recent bbc interviews with north Koreans (worth looking up) report this has been the case in recent years. With lots of negative effects.
Quote from: Josquius on October 11, 2023, 11:07:13 AMBut it helps a lot that Egyptian border guards are likely to be very underpaid, poorly controlled, and, very sympathetic to the Palestinian cause in general and probably to the broader idea of violence being necessary.
Gotta be impressed with your knowledge of teh opinions of Egyptian Border guards. Any factual basis for it?
Quote from: Josephus on October 11, 2023, 06:37:35 AMAs I said very early on, it wouldn't surprise me if the Israelis knew about this beforehand. This conflict ticks a lot of boxes in Netanyahu's "things I need to do" list.
1. Unity government
2. Popular support
3. World permission to exterminate Hamas with extreme prejudice
An inquiry may come 2-3 years down the road, but by that point other things would have happened. Bibi is a lot like Trump that way, shit doesn't stick.
And add number 4 - blame the intelligence failure on lefty officers.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 11, 2023, 10:45:03 AMAlso, Egypt has historically helped Israel enforce the long running "blockade." In theory the blockade has always intended to only block materials that can be used to develop weapons or military capacity, but some technology and supplies that have both civil and military uses, are blocked as well. Egypt has helped enforce that by inspecting cargo going into Gaza and following Israel's rules on what is allowed in and isn't allowed in.
Anyone expecting Egypt to just help the Palestinians by opening their pockets or borders, that is not going to happen.
Yeah.
Relations between Egypt and Israel have never been exactly warm, but they've had peace between the two countries since 1979 and they have a very workmanlike relationship. Remember the reports that Egypt actually warned Israel about the attacks.
The notion that Israel is going to try and just ethnically cleanse Gaza and force the Palestinians into Egypt is ridiculous. First of all it would be a humanitarian tragedy and war crime. But secondly Egypt wants nothing to do with the Gaza Palestinians and would probably take it as an act of war.
That being said though - I have no idea what Israel is actually planning to do. They don't really have any great options.
Quote from: Tamas on October 11, 2023, 08:56:51 AMThanks for the summaries OVB.
My moral problem with the total siege is what is the point? Requiring unconditional surrender of Hamas and the populace? So what if they get it? It's not like Hamas won't stockpile their weapons anyhow and start guerilla warfare once the IDF is there.
This is to Jake's question - I don't know what their goal is. And the language I've seen of turning it into a city of tents suggests that they're not sure what an achievable goal is that isn't, basically, just massive retaliation.
I think any state would and would have to retaliate after Saturday's attack. But I'm not sure retaliation is enough for a military far less a political strategy. Hopefully a national unity government can push some of those questions as the opposition have a lot of people with a lot of security experience.
On Egypt from my understanding they've tightened the border even more since Saturday. I think the US has been asking them possibly to facilitate a humanitarian corridor - not least to get Western citizens in Gaza out (for example the in-laws of Scotland's First Minister, who are Palestinian and were visiting family). But Egypt's in a huge financial crisis right now with an IMF bailout, inflation at 40% - I believe it was one of the world's largest importers of Ukrainian grain. So if Western countries want Egypt's support on that we'll probably need to pay (and from a European perspective there will probably be a desire not to see any Palestinians fleeing Gaza ending up in, say, Libya).
QuoteAs I said very early on, it wouldn't surprise me if the Israelis knew about this beforehand. This conflict ticks a lot of boxes in Netanyahu's "things I need to do" list.
1. Unity government
2. Popular support
3. World permission to exterminate Hamas with extreme prejudice
An inquiry may come 2-3 years down the road, but by that point other things would have happened. Bibi is a lot like Trump that way, shit doesn't stick.
To be clear I don't think it's that. I think Netanyahu's strategy and coalition were based on the fact that Hamas were contained in Gaza and not able to do anything that threatened Israel. Apparently there was also a view that they'd basically gone soft and were focused on economics. That was a misinterpretation of an uptick in requests for passes into Israel for work many of those recent requests appear to have been Hamas. That meant Palestine wasn't a front page story - which enabled Netanyahu's strategy of basically containing the issue and working with Arab leaders in the Middle East and domestically focusing on the West Bank and expanding settlements.
It sounds like Egypt warned them and domestic security services may have too (I think it probably is relevant to his assessment that Netanyahu had been dismissing serious security figures as basically "deep state" opponents). It is very difficult for any of us to change a base assumption - such as actually Hamas aren't contained and they're planning a major attack that Iron Dome can't stop. Because that undermines Netanyahu's entire foreign and domestic policy strategy. I don't think he knew and thought he'd benefit, I think he was warned and decided on balance that it probably wasn't true and his assumptions (and the experience of the last ten years or so) were still correct.
But when a leader gets that wrong on security then it's catastrophic.
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2023, 11:46:57 AMThat being said though - I have no idea what Israel is actually planning to do. They don't really have any great options.
My guess is a couple of months of air strikes on Gaza while they plan how to send ground forces in to root out Hamas. Then a ground invasion of Gaza itself and some kind of occupation.
Israel occupied Gaza from 67-05, so I don't see any logistical reason it couldn't be done again. The premise of withdrawing was that under a cost benefit analysis it was a lot cheaper to just wall them off, but if that has changed it could re-orient Israel's thinking on it.
That doesn't, of course, move us to any kind of ultimate resolution to the conflict, but it isn't without precedent.
Quote from: Legbiter on October 11, 2023, 12:50:00 PMQuote from: Barrister on October 11, 2023, 11:46:57 AMThat being said though - I have no idea what Israel is actually planning to do. They don't really have any great options.
My guess is a couple of months of air strikes on Gaza while they plan how to send ground forces in to root out Hamas. Then a ground invasion of Gaza itself and some kind of occupation.
And invasion / occupation of Gaza would be a nightmare.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 11, 2023, 12:53:38 PMIsrael occupied Gaza from 67-05, so I don't see any logistical reason it couldn't be done again. The premise of withdrawing was that under a cost benefit analysis it was a lot cheaper to just wall them off, but if that has changed it could re-orient Israel's thinking on it.
That doesn't, of course, move us to any kind of ultimate resolution to the conflict, but it isn't without precedent.
Google suggests the population of Gaza in 1967 was 394,000.
Estimated population now is close to two million. All in 88 square miles.
2005 was many years after 1967 FWIW, and the population of the West Bank is several million as well, which Israel also occupies.
It does look like Netanyahu was warned that Hamas was going to do something big by the Egyptians / Israeli security services, but most likely dismissed it as nothing serious. After all, all Hamas could do in the last 15 years was lobby rockets at Israel. Sure that was terrifying during the hours they did it, but it rarely lasted more than 2-3 days before it calmed down again. What could they do behind the wall?
Also I wonder if Israeli society at large (not just Netanyahu) was suffering from Magniot Line syndrome - the barrier around Gaza providing a false sense of security? I mean just how close was the festival to the barrier and ditto the kibbutz and other affected settlements nearby?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 11, 2023, 12:58:23 PM2005 was many years after 1967 FWIW, and the population of the West Bank is several million as well, which Israel also occupies.
Maintaining control over a territory is significantly different than establishing control over a territory.
I don't want to minimize an occupation--but just to put things in military perspective. If that is the route the Israelis went, there would be an initial "battle" phase. This phase cannot be interminable--Hamas has a certain number of fighters and weapons, and they are not infinite. Israel has more fighters and far more ability to continually regenerate supply.
Lessons from major urban "conquests" of the 21st century say the battle could last a month. It could last 10 months. Israeli losses could be reasonably expected to range from 500 to 2500-3000 or so. These are not small numbers, but in the context of a major mobilization and what would be spoken of as a major war by Israel's leadership, it is not anything Israel or a similar sized country could not bear.
Once the battle phase ends, the true occupation phase begins. The number of soldiers needed to hold Gaza will be far less than the number required to take it. There are tons of things that can be done to pacify and suppress the ability of a population to resist occupation.
The occupation will incur a long term human cost for both Gazans and IDF, who will always be at risk of ambush / sniper fire from underground fighters, but again--in the context of a nationstate these are not intolerable. Israel dealt with such for decades.
When the U.S. occupied Baghdad, population 6.2 million, they allocated 6 brigades for the task. And whilst several major battles broke back out in Baghdad during the occupation, those forces did hold the city for years.
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2023, 01:07:34 PMMaintaining control over a territory is significantly different than establishing control over a territory.
Yeah and I agree with OvB's points - especially if it is long term.
The other point is that for all countries except the US you need to make choices. If the IDF is occupying Gaza and the West Bank that might require a different approach in those areas and it might have a knock on effect on Israel's posture elsewhere.
I suppose the other goal with retaliation could be the strategic shock point. Israeli territory was invaded, towns were taken and it took the IDF hours to get there to respond and in some cases were still fighting Hamas one or two days later. For a country like Israel with its history and that has always relied on its deterrence threat that's a huge shock. They may want to try and restore deterrence in this operation by demonstrating the IDF's capabilities - although I'm not sure if attacking or occupying Gaza would really do that.
Quote from: Gups on October 11, 2023, 11:25:53 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 11, 2023, 11:07:13 AMBut it helps a lot that Egyptian border guards are likely to be very underpaid, poorly controlled, and, very sympathetic to the Palestinian cause in general and probably to the broader idea of violence being necessary.
Gotta be impressed with your knowledge of teh opinions of Egyptian Border guards. Any factual basis for it?
Tonnes. Eg
https://m.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/the-high-price-to-escape-gaza-corruption-on-the-egyptian-border-467011
Yeah, and Israel / Netanyahu have been very vague on what their end goals are.
I can imagine a lot of things short of a full occupation. For example, more and more reporting is showing that Israel had really not taken security on the Gazan border very seriously in a long time.
They were overly reliant on cheap options--camera systems, unmanned drone monitoring, electronic alarms. It was clearly geared towards a system where you get automatically alerted if something is going on--and you're probably expecting it, at worst, is like 3-4 Hamas terrorist finding a way through the border. You then dispatch a squad of soldiers to take them out, worst case scenario.
It was simply not being maintained or manned to handle a true, mass breach and literally what would be the U.S. equivalent of a brigade sized force of Hamas and other groups (Islamic Jihad et. al.) surging into southern Israel.
Retooling the entire approach to the security barrier--which would mean having to man it more heavily, would be an option, and one that would cost more than what they were doing before, but a lot less than a full reoccupation.
But if you take Bibi at his word that Hamas will no longer be allowed to rule, well that doesn't happen by beefing up the barrier, that requires invasion and occupation.
Although the balance and risk for Israel with that is if what happens in Gaza inspires revolts in the West Bank, riots in Jerusalem and attacks from Hezbollah. I'm not sure how much the IDF/Israel can respond to simultaneously - it's been a very long time.
The West Bank is a lot less equipped to riot because they haven't been able to build a giant arsenal for 15 years, since they have been occupied the entire time.
The northern border is also disadvantageously guarded by a lot of conventional military assets--which IMO is why Hezbollah has mostly been sending mortars and such. A militant group doesn't do well on the offensive into prepared defensive positions manned by professional soldiers. Hezbollah's (limited) successes against Israel have always been in situations where Israel is inside Lebanon and having to fight them in insurgent style warfare, it would be very hard for an organization like Hezbollah to directly attack the IDF defensive positions in the north without suffering unbelievable casualties.
You would need Syrian Army probably with significant boots on the ground from Iran to push through the North I think. (Which carries a real risk of direct U.S. intervention.)
The Syrian army needed heavy Russian and Iranian support to defeat ragtag rebels; I don't think they would pose much of a threat to even scratch IDF forces.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2023, 09:15:49 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 10, 2023, 05:17:25 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2023, 12:31:24 PMHamas cannot have been hoping for a hostage swap given their brutality. They must have done this hoping to create the reaction from Israel that is now coming. If it was not already an eternal conflict, it will be now.
Someone I know from another board has Palestinian family and lived there for a while.
I've never been on very good terms with the guy, but I respect him and his opinions on the conflict, without agreeing entirely with his vision.
His opinion on Hamas is that it's a classic terror group move: they don't care what you or I think about them, they don't care what Jordan and Egypt think. What they hope to achieve is to convince Israel that the price they pay to occupy Palestine is so high that it ain't worth it. Eventually, they will have no choice but to withdraw from a huge part of the occupied territories because their civilian population will have had enough.
I do not believe Hamas has any realistic chance of seeing this happening. Israel will reduce the entire Gaza strip to rubble before they cede a contiguous territory to Palestinians in the West Bank.
Here is an opinion piece in the Globe I think will internet you. The author makes a similar point to yours and an early point Otto made about the aims of Hamas. It also goes into some detail regarding why Israel's policies and response make no sense and guarantees endless conflict. I have gifted it so no need to worry about the paywall
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/gift/519974dc5e28f762a87fb14c1570523f4fb873adfcfcb945043907ccc3c41650/LII7G6N6CFC6JD3FLXAAXVEVMM/
Thanks, interesting read.
Haarez Editorial also blamed Netanyahu for the Hamas attack. There is dissent, but it is small, because the rethoric is, and will be huge.
Gallant, Netanyahu and even to a degree Gantz have all made quasi-apocalyptic comments in the wake of forming the national unity government.
Bibi going so far as to say "every member of Hamas is a dead man."
It is difficult for me to believe, after Israel was invaded and hundreds of Israeli civilians killed, that Israel will just refortify the border or conduct an intensive bombing campaign. I think it is more probable that a ground invasion and reoccupation will occur.
I agree--the level of men and heavy equipment already moved to South Israel is basically indication of nothing other than a ground invasion. My guess is they want to plan as extensively as possible though, going into an enemy city is no small thing.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 11, 2023, 01:08:28 PMWhen the U.S. occupied Baghdad, population 6.2 million, they allocated 6 brigades for the task. And whilst several major battles broke back out in Baghdad during the occupation, those forces did hold the city for years.
Afaik, the US was not alone, there were coalition troops and Iraqi police and military patrolling with them too. I can not get specific numbers for Baghdad, only the total numbers for Iraq.
There were lots of military and civilian casualties during this war too, marked by urban warfare.
I don't know about the number of brigades needed, but I know there will be zero cooperation from the locals. The IDF will have to cleanse the area. It wil be ugly.
How many will oppose the actions openly and dare be call traitors, collaborators to the Hamas in the face of such atrocities?
It's gonna be much worst than the Freedom Fries and a boycott on Cabernet Sauvignon.
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2023, 03:18:29 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 11, 2023, 01:08:28 PMWhen the U.S. occupied Baghdad, population 6.2 million, they allocated 6 brigades for the task. And whilst several major battles broke back out in Baghdad during the occupation, those forces did hold the city for years.
Afaik, the US was not alone, there coalition troops and Iraqi police and military patrolling with them too.
Depends on when you are talking--the 6 brigades number is from 2003, and the coalition troops all had "zones" they were assigned to, as far as I can remember the British weren't in that zone, and they were the only significant manpower ally in the Iraq invasion.
In later eras like 2006+ there were Iraqi forces.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 11, 2023, 03:17:34 PMI agree--the level of men and heavy equipment already moved to South Israel is basically indication of nothing other than a ground invasion. My guess is they want to plan as extensively as possible though, going into an enemy city is no small thing.
Yeah, from what I've heard Israel has more soldiers prepped to go into Gaza than Russia had invading Ukraine.
Quote from: viper37 on October 11, 2023, 03:07:41 PMHaarez Editorial also blamed Netanyahu for the Hamas attack. There is dissent, but it is small, because the rethoric is, and will be huge.
I'm not so sure on dissent being and remaining small - I think Israel is a pretty argumentative, occasionally fractious (in a good way, and recently a bad way) democracy. And I think security is too important in Israel to tolerate mistakes or failures.
Haaretz is sort of to be expected but is making serious charges. You've also had former defence chief of staffs who are close to Gantz saying that there shouldn't be a national unity government and that Netanyahu should resign. There's been others making similar points - quite angrily.
Again, to an extent that's to be expected, but I think even as there is a period and a government of national unity, and there is unity in grief and a need to retaliate, the dissent is still there and I don't think it'll go away or diminish. From what I've seen the tone is nothing like what I remember of the US post-9/11 - there is (again I think admirably) more argument and fractiousness still.
Edit: E.g. Israeli ministers getting absolutely barracked by people when visiting hospitals. I understand they're being told "you ruined the country", blaming them for division in the country etc. Via an Israeli journalist - this minister brought the last coaltion down by switching to Likud:
https://x.com/Meir_Marciano/status/1712115635994472923?s=20
These attacks were in the heart of old left Israel - one of the kibbutzes hit still gives most of its votes to Labor (nationally polling within the margin of error). This attack is directly on the fracture in Israel - and people there are angry that they were left on their own for hours with Hamas marauding because the IDF were protecting the coalition supporting settlers in the West Bank. I don't know when Netanyahu will go but I don't think it's possible to survive this, especially if more stories come out about warnings. The worst attack in Israeli happened on his watch, it largely affected communities who didn't vote for him and there seems to be a perception (which may be true) that the IDF weren't there to protect those Israelis because they were focusing on protecting the constituents of his coalition allies.
AJ have video of a release female hostage and her two small children approaching the border barriers.
Maybe Hamas hopes that trigger-happy soldiers will kill them?
Details here:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/11/hamas-video-appears-to-show-release-of-woman-two-children
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2023, 03:22:42 PMFrom what I've seen the tone is nothing like what I remember of the US post-9/11 - there is (again I think admirably) more argument and fractiousness still.
I see dissent in the form of editorials, op-eds in newspapers. Like the excellent text given by CC.
But politically, I do not see a lot opposition. I see unity. And I fear what we will see in the coming weeks is a blood bath in Gaza, and it will be swept under the rug. And even if there are questions raised later, it would be too late.
I'm seeing much more stuff like this (https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-767629) blaming everyone but their government's policy for the attack than the alternative.
We will see. I may misjudge the political climate. I hope so.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 11, 2023, 10:54:37 AMMassive incursions from Hezbollah across the norther border ongoing.
False alarm apparently:
QuoteNow the Israeli military has checked and they believe it was a false alarm. But it just shows you the nervousness here.
Quote from: mongers on October 11, 2023, 04:44:26 PMQuote from: Hamilcar on October 11, 2023, 10:54:37 AMMassive incursions from Hezbollah across the norther border ongoing.
False alarm apparently:
QuoteNow the Israeli military has checked and they believe it was a false alarm. But it just shows you the nervousness here.
Really worrying that this could happen when everyone is on a hair trigger.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 11, 2023, 04:46:53 PMQuote from: mongers on October 11, 2023, 04:44:26 PMQuote from: Hamilcar on October 11, 2023, 10:54:37 AMMassive incursions from Hezbollah across the norther border ongoing.
False alarm apparently:
QuoteNow the Israeli military has checked and they believe it was a false alarm. But it just shows you the nervousness here.
Really worrying that this could happen when everyone is on a hair trigger.
Prevalence of social media distorting not just news/information, but possible gov/mil. reactions?
Quote from: mongers on October 11, 2023, 04:59:52 PMQuote from: Hamilcar on October 11, 2023, 04:46:53 PMQuote from: mongers on October 11, 2023, 04:44:26 PMQuote from: Hamilcar on October 11, 2023, 10:54:37 AMMassive incursions from Hezbollah across the norther border ongoing.
False alarm apparently:
QuoteNow the Israeli military has checked and they believe it was a false alarm. But it just shows you the nervousness here.
Really worrying that this could happen when everyone is on a hair trigger.
Prevalence of social media distorting not just news/information, but possible gov/mil. reactions?
We will have to wait and see what happened but my understanding is that the national app sent out alerts to everyone. It wasn't social media amplifying BS.
QuoteUS President Joe Biden confirms reports that Hamas terrorists beheaded Israeli children in its surprise onslaught over the weekend.
"It is important for Americans to see what is happening. I have been doing this for a long time. I never thought that I would see... have confirmed pictures of terrorists beheading children," Biden says during remarks to US Jewish community leaders at a White House roundtable.
"Downplaying Hamas's atrocities and blaming the Jewish people is unthinkable," the president adds.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 11, 2023, 05:36:05 PMQuoteUS President Joe Biden confirms reports that Hamas terrorists beheaded Israeli children in its surprise onslaught over the weekend.
"It is important for Americans to see what is happening. I have been doing this for a long time. I never thought that I would see... have confirmed pictures of terrorists beheading children," Biden says during remarks to US Jewish community leaders at a White House roundtable.
"Downplaying Hamas's atrocities and blaming the Jewish people is unthinkable," the president adds.
Of course, plenty of people on Twitter are
still claiming this isn't true and that Biden is lying. There's no convincing people who don't want to be convinced.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 11, 2023, 06:36:05 PMOf course, plenty of people on Twitter are still claiming this isn't true and that Biden is lying. There's no convincing people who don't want to be convinced.
We all have authorities we trust and others we distrust, which is fair enough. Personally I believe Biden. I wouldn't believe Trump if he said the same thing.
Then, of course, there'll be people online (and "people" online) who'll claim to disbelieve because that disbelief serves a purpose.
In this case at least, it isn't just Biden.
There is an IDF commander on the ground who was the initial one saying it, then a French journalist who said she "confirmed" it with a trusted IDF source, then a couple of other journalists who have said the same. It seems a lot of people online won't believe it unless they personally watch a baby get its head chopped off, but I think there is a reasonable amount of proof.
I'm reminded of some relatives of mine who fought in WWII--including the last one still alive, who turned 100 in March. None of these men ever talked about the war in all the years I was growing up or for decades after--the one who is still alive never talked about it until he was 93 and started doing interviews for local news and doing veteran's parade events in his home town.
But one thing most of them did say, at some point or another, despite never talking about the war otherwise--was to the effect of "never let anyone tell you the Holocaust didn't happen." That was important enough to all of them that they felt the need to say it, and repeatedly, throughout their lives.
I suspect it is the same reason the U.S. military ordered all American-held German POWs to watch film reels taken of the camps being liberated, and why Eisenhower required local mayors and political leaders in Germany to walk through the camps as well--they knew there will always be people that try to minimize or talk away things like this.
Quote from: Jacob on October 11, 2023, 06:39:46 PMQuote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 11, 2023, 06:36:05 PMOf course, plenty of people on Twitter are still claiming this isn't true and that Biden is lying. There's no convincing people who don't want to be convinced.
We all have authorities we trust and others we distrust, which is fair enough. Personally I believe Biden. I wouldn't believe Trump if he said the same thing.
Then, of course, there'll be people online (and "people" online) who'll claim to disbelieve because that disbelief serves a purpose.
An interesting angle regarding how Canadians are getting their news about this conflict now that links to actual news sites are not available, social media seems to be the main source of "news". It looks like very few Canadians actually go to news sites without getting their social media links to those sites.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2023, 01:14:07 PMQuote from: Barrister on October 11, 2023, 01:07:34 PMMaintaining control over a territory is significantly different than establishing control over a territory.
Yeah and I agree with OvB's points - especially if it is long term.
The other point is that for all countries except the US you need to make choices. If the IDF is occupying Gaza and the West Bank that might require a different approach in those areas and it might have a knock on effect on Israel's posture elsewhere.
I suppose the other goal with retaliation could be the strategic shock point. Israeli territory was invaded, towns were taken and it took the IDF hours to get there to respond and in some cases were still fighting Hamas one or two days later. For a country like Israel with its history and that has always relied on its deterrence threat that's a huge shock. They may want to try and restore deterrence in this operation by demonstrating the IDF's capabilities - although I'm not sure if attacking or occupying Gaza would really do that.
Yeah, the article I linked for Viper makes a similiar point. Deterrence would not be reestablished by Israel committing a form of self punishment by attempting to occupy Gaza.
Rather the reverse would be more likely as nations and groups, who are at least sympathetic to the Palestinians are much more likely to be dragged into this conflict.
I wonder if eventually Israel's plan would be to go in, try to kill every member of Hamas down to the last man, and then get out and seal it a little better this time around. Sure, there is plenty of raw material in Gaza to replace Hamas, but maybe the replacements will remember how there got to be an opening that they filled, and that an opening can be created again.
It's often said that harshly suppressing resistance just invites more of it, but I think that's true only up to a point. Eventually the suppression just becomes too overwhelming to overcome through inspiration. I think this is the kind of scenario of retribution rather than reoccupation that Israel can get away with, thanks primarily to the unspeakable brutality of Hamas, as long as they don't flatten too much of Gaza while digging out the Hamas fighters.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2023, 03:22:42 PMI don't know when Netanyahu will go but I don't think it's possible to survive this, especially if more stories come out about warnings. The worst attack in Israeli happened on his watch, it largely affected communities who didn't vote for him and there seems to be a perception (which may be true) that the IDF weren't there to protect those Israelis because they were focusing on protecting the constituents of his coalition allies.
I can barely understand politics in the US, and I live here and interact regularly with Trump voters. I definitely can't understand politics in Israel. What you say makes sense; logic suggests that there should be accountability for such a massive security failure, especially one so easily traceable to ministry policy of monomaniacal focus on WB settlements. Everyone knows Bibi is corrupt and played out; his only card left was a rep for "security" and he just presided over Israel's worst security catastrophe in 50 years. But what do I know? If logic prevailed this shameful excuse of a government never would have got near to power in the first place, much less endured this long.
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2023, 10:53:11 PMI wonder if eventually Israel's plan would be to go in, try to kill every member of Hamas down to the last man, and then get out and seal it a little better this time around. Sure, there is plenty of raw material in Gaza to replace Hamas, but maybe the replacements will remember how there got to be an opening that they filled, and that an opening can be created again.
It's often said that harshly suppressing resistance just invites more of it, but I think that's true only up to a point. Eventually the suppression just becomes too overwhelming to overcome through inspiration. I think this is the kind of scenario of retribution rather than reoccupation that Israel can get away with, thanks primarily to the unspeakable brutality of Hamas, as long as they don't flatten too much of Gaza while digging out the Hamas fighters.
For that to be successful there has to be a space in which the retribution is terrible enough that it serves as an object lesson for the non-Hamas Palestinians who witness it (and survive), as well as for their descendants who only hear about it living in misery on the Palestinian territories; while at the same time being not so terrible that it unequivocally loses Israel the moral high ground in the eyes of the world (and themselves).
Personally, I don't think it is going to be very hard to find that spot and it may not exist.
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1712439647689728487 (https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1712439647689728487)
It seems like Israel is about to show what an enraged western democracy is capable of when the gloves come off. They are really not fucking around. This was presumably a warning shot across the bow to Iran, next time they'll bomb during/after landing.
Quote from: Threviel on October 12, 2023, 07:21:10 AMhttps://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1712439647689728487 (https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1712439647689728487)
It seems like Israel is about to show what an enraged western democracy is capable of when the gloves come off. They are really not fucking around. This was presumably a warning shot across the bow to Iran, next time they'll bomb during/after landing.
My take was that next time, they'll down the Minister's plane.
(Lockheed Martin engineers must think Christmas has come early to see their F-35s fly around with impunity and fuck shit up)
Yeah, something like that. A very very serious warning.
Russian shit couldn't handle Nato 80's handmedowns in Ukraine, Israel can presumably do almost what what they want with modern stuff.
Quote from: DGuller on October 11, 2023, 10:53:11 PMI wonder if eventually Israel's plan would be to go in, try to kill every member of Hamas down to the last man, and then get out and seal it a little better this time around. Sure, there is plenty of raw material in Gaza to replace Hamas, but maybe the replacements will remember how there got to be an opening that they filled, and that an opening can be created again.
It's often said that harshly suppressing resistance just invites more of it, but I think that's true only up to a point. Eventually the suppression just becomes too overwhelming to overcome through inspiration. I think this is the kind of scenario of retribution rather than reoccupation that Israel can get away with, thanks primarily to the unspeakable brutality of Hamas, as long as they don't flatten too much of Gaza while digging out the Hamas fighters.
"Harsh suppression just creates more resistance" has always been false. It is an aphorism that sounds wise, but it is out of step with observed reality.
It is certainly the case that
sometimes harsh suppression just increases the willingness of a civilian population to riot / rebel, sometimes to disastrous effect. But there are probably more known examples of States harshly suppressing rebels and the movements dying out. The question as to whether it is more likely to do one versus the other has to be looked at based on the specifics on the ground and the overall situation.
To tie it more to the current situation, the reason I think harsh suppression may not lead to any permanent quash of Palestinian militants is because:
1. Israel, despite the claims of its many detractors, is not going to Roman Empire or Genghis Khan style truly genocide the Palestinians (e.g. mass murder of almost all adult males, shipping women and children off in chains as slaves, leave behind a very small remnant population.)
2. Since they aren't doing 1, the population of Palestinians will still exist, and since Israel has no willingness to do anything to move the occupied peoples into some semblance of a normal life, they have little incentive to be peaceful. Most successfully crushed rebellions, at least the ones where they didn't go Option 1, the State creates conditions so the crushed people have some pathway to living a normal life where they can be comfortable and take care of their families. Most people aren't willing to fight and lose their lives if they have a tolerable living condition and some semblance of "something to live for."
Always been false? The Palestinian case itself proves you're assertion is faulty.
Yeah, if harsh suppression crates more resistance then Grozny would be a hotbed of resistance.
Traditionally western nations, well, except the Germans and Belgians, does not have the stomach to go all Roman Empire on their enemies. And I don't think the Israelis will do it either. They are in a shit strategic position where they are more or less forced to occupy Gaza, but then what?
They can't very well impose democracy on Gaza, that'll just lead to Hamas 2.0. There's no secular security organisation within Gaza that can take over, so if they want that they'll have to support Fatah and that'll just be a new shit show leading to eternal occupation.
The best option would perhaps be to ask the UN or something to take over stewardship, but I don't know about the feasibility of that and it carries the risk of an inefficient UN allowing terrorism to rise.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 12, 2023, 08:48:06 AMAlways been false? The Palestinian case itself proves you're assertion is faulty.
The aphorism that brutal suppression just makes the resistance strong, is what I am saying is faulty.
The reality is sometimes it makes it stronger, sometimes it doesn't. There is no wiseman absolute rule about it.
Quote from: Threviel on October 12, 2023, 08:58:31 AMYeah, if harsh suppression crates more resistance then Grozny would be a hotbed of resistance.
Traditionally western nations, well, except the Germans and Belgians, does not have the stomach to go all Roman Empire on their enemies. And I don't think the Israelis will do it either. They are in a shit strategic position where they are more or less forced to occupy Gaza, but then what?
They can't very well impose democracy on Gaza, that'll just lead to Hamas 2.0. There's no secular security organisation within Gaza that can take over, so if they want that they'll have to support Fatah and that'll just be a new shit show leading to eternal occupation.
The best option would perhaps be to ask the UN or something to take over stewardship, but I don't know about the feasibility of that and it carries the risk of an inefficient UN allowing terrorism to rise.
Congratulations, you have discovered the conundrum of attaining peace in the Middle East :D
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 12, 2023, 09:17:44 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 12, 2023, 08:48:06 AMAlways been false? The Palestinian case itself proves you're assertion is faulty.
The aphorism that brutal suppression just makes the resistance strong, is what I am saying is faulty.
The reality is sometimes it makes it stronger, sometimes it doesn't. There is no wiseman absolute rule about it.
I accept that. Your original statement was that the aphorism is always false but as noted, in the case of the Palestinians, it is entirely true and particularly in the case of Gaza.
Its old.
But as done before I recommend the Peacemaker game to see if you can fix the Israel-Palestine conflict. :bowler:
http://www.peacemakergame.com/
Yeah, the only real road to peace is 50 years of imposed economic prosperity, rule of law and proper schooling to get rid of the plague that is fundamentalist religion. And then perhaps democracy.
I just heard an interview with an international law prof, who took the position that the indiscriminate siege of Gaza is contrary to international law. He noted that Israel needs to take a proportional response, which differentiates between legitimate targets and civilians. The act of shutting off access to water and energy will kill civilians, and the Israelis know it.
He feels strongly that Israel has a right to defend itself, but within the bounds of international law.
This goes to Jacob's point about there, being a very slim chance that Israel could ever hold any moral high ground.
It was also noted that the US has said that it is appropriate for Israel to respond, but the important part is how they respond. The subtlety of that statement might be lost on the cheerleaders, but it seems a clear warning to Israel to stay within the bounds of international law.
Realistically the only way to peace I can see is one side has to agree to turn the other cheek.
After Oslo and leading up to the 2nd Intifada, Israel seemed more willing to negotiate, and willing to make concessions, than ever before.
Then the 2nd Intifada happened, Sharon came to power--and while for a Likud PM he was still at least willing to try and go down the Oslo path, the country had obviously reacted to the violence by moving further right.
Since that time we have mostly just had successively more right wing Israeli governments.
The way through that would have required Israel to do something that is, frankly, nigh impossible for any country to do--to see the violence and the attacks of the 2nd Intifada and double down on the peace plan / negotiations, saying "okay this was terrible, but we have stopped the fighting again and we have to keep making this work."
Like most countries, Israel wasn't willing to become philosophical about it, they went the other way. That is writ large why the thing is so intractable, neither side is truly willing to fight hard for peace if they ever feel the other side is being unreasonable, but most likely the conflict will never have both sides being reasonable.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 12, 2023, 09:27:35 AMI just heard an interview with an international law prof, who took the position that the indiscriminate siege of Gaza is contrary to international law. He noted that Israel needs to take a proportional response, which differentiates between legitimate targets and civilians. The act of shutting off access to water and energy will kill civilians, and the Israelis know it.
He feels strongly that Israel has a right to defend itself, but within the bounds of international law.
This goes to Jacob's point about there, being a very slim chance that Israel could ever hold any moral high ground.
It was also noted that the US has said that it is appropriate for Israel to respond, but the important part is how they respond. The subtlety of that statement might be lost on the cheerleaders, but it seems a clear warning to Israel to stay within the bounds of international law.
Trying to separate the legal and the moral--I think a civilized, Western state conducting a siege should allow a humanitarian corridor.
I don't believe Israel has a legal obligation to
generate electricity for its enemy in a declared war (which this is), or to ship them fuel or water. But I think there is a moral obligation to allow very basic necessities to come in through a humanitarian corridor with Egypt.
Legally, my understanding is the early 20th century laws of war largely don't address much around siege warfare--which was a well understood and accepted practice at the time. One of them did address wanton "bombardment" of cities, but it didn't apply to aerial bombardment.
Prohibitions on aerial bombardment came about in later conventions, I believe one of the APs to the GC, and AFAIk Israel, the U.S. and most other countries that "actually fight wars" never did.
There are also some prohibitions in GC AP1 about besieging civilian cities, which again--the relevant parties haven't signed (the U.S. signed it but the Senate wouldn't ratify it, Israel has not signed it, neither has India or Turkey.)
I think this is why a lot of the experts have tiptoed really carefully around the international law aspect. Usually saying things like "this isn't in line with the law", but a lot of them aren't saying Israel is breaking the law, because they know the law that prohibits this are laws Israel never agreed to sign, and customary international law hasn't evolved to the point that unsigned parts of the GC are held to be universally applied (in no small part because the U.S. is vigorously against such things, since it has a number of later GC addendums it has never agreed with.)
The interviewer asked the prof the moral question. He asked whether given the porosity of the terrorist attack, Israel was justified in what it is now doing. The prof was quite clear that Israel as a Democracy has a higher standard to meet than a terrorist organization.
The Palestinian people are not the enemy of Israel, unless you buy into the extreme right wing view of the current Israeli government. They are attacking a terrorist organization, and in the course of doing that they are killing civilians knowingly. In any other context we would all agree that is a war crime.
I just saw a story about several CEOs asking for names of Harvard students that wrote a statement blaming Israel for the Hamas attacks, openly saying that the intention was to blacklist them from employment. For the strong supporters of "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences", are you okay with this?
IAL but there are more legitimate military targets than one would think.
A hospital is not a military target. If you put a gun on the roof of the hospital and shoot at the enemy planes you've turned that hospital into a military target.
Israel, before this latest war often did a few things to mitigate civilian casualties on their air strikes. They, when possible, sent out texts to phones in the vicinity warning them. They used leaflets and so on. When it was time to strike they first knocked by sending a dud into the roof a few minutes before the actual strike and then they struck.
They did this to lessen the harm on civilians. The reason they even bombed places with civilians is that Hamas has made a habit of hiding amongst civilians. Weapon factories in the basements of schools and hospitals, forcing civilians to stand on roofs of houses being attacked and so on. Using the rules to their advantage, which I might say is understandable operationally.
Now war is declared and that changes a few things. To quote Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate_military_target):
QuoteAny attack must be justified by military necessity: an attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective,[1] and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated".[1]
Some targets are clearly legitimate, including all military personnel directly engaging in hostilities on behalf of a belligerent party who are not hors de combat or are not members of a neutral country.[2] Some civilian infrastructure, such as rail tracks, roads, ports, airports, and telecommunications used by the military for communications or transporting assets, are all considered to be legitimate military targets.[2]
The legal situation becomes more nuanced and ambiguous if the harm to civilians or civilian property is "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated". During World War II, there was a song called a thing-ummy-bob, which contains the lines "And it's the girl that makes the thing that holds the oil, that oils the ring that works the thing-ummy-bob, that's going to win the war".[3] Whether such a girl is a legitimate target is an area that probably has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. However, Protocol I suggests that if it is not clear, then the parties to the conflict should err on the side of caution, as Article 52 states: "In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house, or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used".[1][2]
What Israel is doing now is far more humane than what the allies did during WWII. Blockade is not something new either, just look at Germany in WWI. It's horrible, it's bad, it can be seen as immoral, but I'm not very sure that what Israel is doing is against international law.
Hamas doesn't just hide among civilians it forbids civilians from leaving. Hamas is sending out messages telling people to not leave their homes and instead die there. Israel has been sending cell phone alerts for people to flee.
Quote from: DGuller on October 12, 2023, 09:56:47 AMI just saw a story about several CEOs asking for names of Harvard students that wrote a statement blaming Israel for the Hamas attacks, openly saying that the intention was to blacklist them from employment. For the strong supporters of "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences", are you okay with this?
Thats scary.
Sounds like quite a different situation to usual cases of someone saying something dumb and getting themselves 'cancelled'. Here it sounds like the employers are specifically asking for a list of names of people who have views that agree with something pretty broad.
If someone says on twitter "Haha dead Israelis brought it on themselves" then they deserve everything coming their way.
If in a private university discussion though they said this attack was seriously awful but if we are now going to discuss the Israel-Palestine situation we should discuss the full context, where Israel takes a lot of fault, rather than just kneejerk reactions to this, and they agree with a statement condemning the Israeli government whilst at the same time they condemn Hamas.... Sounds like a lot of such reasonable folks will be thrown in with the "Die Jews die" bunch.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 12, 2023, 09:27:35 AMI just heard an interview with an international law prof, who took the position that the indiscriminate siege of Gaza is contrary to international law. He noted that Israel needs to take a proportional response, which differentiates between legitimate targets and civilians. The act of shutting off access to water and energy will kill civilians, and the Israelis know it.
The Geneva Conventions do not restrict siege warfare. Such restrictions were added in the Additional Protocol adopted in 1977 which states the general principle: "Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited." The commentary addresses the question of blockade more specifically:
QuoteThe prohibition of starvation as a method of warfare does not prohibit siege warfare as long as the purpose is to achieve a military objective and not to starve a civilian population. This is stated in the military manuals of France and New Zealand.[19] Israel's Manual on the Laws of War explains that the prohibition of starvation "clearly implies that the city's inhabitants must be allowed to leave the city during a siege".[20] Alternatively, the besieging party must allow the free passage of foodstuffs and other essential supplies, in accordance with Rule 55. States denounced the use of siege warfare in Bosnia and Herzegovina.[21] It was also condemned by international organizations.[22]
Israel is not a signatory to the AP; neither is the USA, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Thailand, among others.
However, most countries have signed it.
I don't have access to Israel's manual of war cited in the commentary, but I would assume it is fairly similar to the US manual, which states as follows:
Quote5.19 SIEGES AND ENCIRCLED AREAS
It is lawful to besiege enemy forces. Commanders must seek to make arrangements to
permit the passage of certain consignments and should seek to make arrangements for the
passage of certain categories of civilians, and of religious and medical personnel. Different rules
apply to blockade.589
5.19.1 Siege and Encirclement Permissible. It is lawful to besiege enemy forces, i.e., to
encircle them with a view towards inducing their surrender by cutting them off from
reinforcements, supplies, and communications with the outside world.
590 In particular, it is
permissible to seek to starve enemy forces into submission.
5.20 STARVATION
Starvation is a legitimate method of warfare, but it must be conducted in accordance with
the principles of distinction and proportionality, as well as other law of war rules. Starvation of
civilians as a method of combat is also prohibited in non-international armed conflict.608
5.20.1 Starvation – Distinction. It is a legitimate method of war to starve enemy
forces.
609 For example, it is permitted to destroy food intended as sustenance for enemy forces with a view towards weakening them and diverting their resources.610 Enemy forces, for the
purpose of this rule, means those persons constituting military objectives.611
Starvation specifically directed against the enemy civilian population, however, is
prohibited.612 For example, it would be prohibited to destroy food or water supplies for the
purpose of denying sustenance to the civilian population.
5.20.2 Starvation – Proportionality. Military action intended to starve enemy forces,
however, must not be taken where it is expected to result in incidental harm to the civilian
population that is excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated to be gained.613
Feasible precautions to reduce the risk of harm to the civilian population or other
reasonable measures to mitigate the burden to the civilian population may also be warranted
when seeking to starve enemy forces.
614 For example, it may be appropriate to seek to
compensate civilians whose food has been inadvertently destroyed.615 Moreover, an Occupying Power would have additional duties to ensure food and water for the civilian population.
616
5.20.3 Starvation and Other Law of War Rules. Starvation as a method of warfare must
comply with other applicable law of war rules. For example, it would be unlawful to poison
food or water.617 Additionally, starvation, for example, may involve sieges or encirclement,
blockades, attacks, or the seizure and destruction of enemy property.618 In each case, the rules
applicable to those situations must be followed.
The US manual provisions on this subject seem consistent with the AP rule, notwithstanding the lack of an official US signature.
Based on these materials, I do not see how a conclusion could be reached NOW about the legality of Israel's siege of Gaza. It is premature. There is no reason to believe the siege lacks connection with legitimate military objectives and good reason to think that such a connection exists given the apparent plans for a ground offensive. Cutting off electricity is permissible. Cutting of food and water to an entire 2 million person civilian population is not permissible if it results in starvation without opening corridors for either relief or flight. But Gaza has not run out of supplies yet. If Israel simply remains in its current posture and blocks all supplies it will be violating international law if it fails to open up relief corridors. But if it proceeds expeditiously to a ground offensive and then takes reasonable steps to feed the civilian population, it will be in compliance.
Quote from: DGuller on October 12, 2023, 09:56:47 AMI just saw a story about several CEOs asking for names of Harvard students that wrote a statement blaming Israel for the Hamas attacks, openly saying that the intention was to blacklist them from employment. For the strong supporters of "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences", are you okay with this?
I am a supporter of the principle but I'm not OK with this application.
The Israelis turning off the water and electricity probably doesn't matter much. The pipes and power lines were going to be damaged by the bombing anyway. Currently Hamas is digging up watermains to make more rockets.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 12, 2023, 10:21:46 AMQuote from: DGuller on October 12, 2023, 09:56:47 AMI just saw a story about several CEOs asking for names of Harvard students that wrote a statement blaming Israel for the Hamas attacks, openly saying that the intention was to blacklist them from employment. For the strong supporters of "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences", are you okay with this?
I am a supporter of the principle but I'm not OK with this application.
I'm not sure this is even practical. They block everyone with that name who has a Harvard degree? Do these CEOs have super-powered HR staff?
Quote from: DGuller on October 12, 2023, 09:56:47 AMI just saw a story about several CEOs asking for names of Harvard students that wrote a statement blaming Israel for the Hamas attacks, openly saying that the intention was to blacklist them from employment. For the strong supporters of "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences", are you okay with this?
No, I don't think it is a good move or something that should be done. As a free speech issue though, like they are private employers they have the right to decline employment for any reason aside from membership in a protected class.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 12, 2023, 10:33:21 AMQuote from: DGuller on October 12, 2023, 09:56:47 AMI just saw a story about several CEOs asking for names of Harvard students that wrote a statement blaming Israel for the Hamas attacks, openly saying that the intention was to blacklist them from employment. For the strong supporters of "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences", are you okay with this?
No, I don't think it is a good move or something that should be done. As a free speech issue though, like they are private employers they have the right to decline employment for any reason aside from membership in a protected class.
That's not a free speech issue you're talking about, that's a First Amendment issue. Freedom of speech is a cultural value, First Amendment is a necessary but not sufficient condition for this culture to exist. In a culture that values freedom of speech, everyone has a responsibility to sometimes grit their teeth and let awful people say awful things without trying to crush them for it, it's not just the government's responsibility to do that.
I guess I would say--private organizations don't have an obligation to respect free speech, even if it is a general cultural value. As a matter of specific practice, I don't like the idea of a corporation trying to do a "witch hunt" of Harvard student groups, and I would hope Harvard would never comply with such a thing.
Regarding the siege/blockade. Is it a siege or is it a blockade?
I don't think it's either yet; it's just steps in preparation for a city assault. But we'll see.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 12, 2023, 10:19:30 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 12, 2023, 09:27:35 AMI just heard an interview with an international law prof, who took the position that the indiscriminate siege of Gaza is contrary to international law. He noted that Israel needs to take a proportional response, which differentiates between legitimate targets and civilians. The act of shutting off access to water and energy will kill civilians, and the Israelis know it.
The Geneva Conventions do not restrict siege warfare. Such restrictions were added in the Additional Protocol adopted in 1977 which states the general principle: "Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited." The commentary addresses the question of blockade more specifically:
QuoteThe prohibition of starvation as a method of warfare does not prohibit siege warfare as long as the purpose is to achieve a military objective and not to starve a civilian population. This is stated in the military manuals of France and New Zealand.[19] Israel's Manual on the Laws of War explains that the prohibition of starvation "clearly implies that the city's inhabitants must be allowed to leave the city during a siege".[20] Alternatively, the besieging party must allow the free passage of foodstuffs and other essential supplies, in accordance with Rule 55. States denounced the use of siege warfare in Bosnia and Herzegovina.[21] It was also condemned by international organizations.[22]
Israel is not a signatory to the AP; neither is the USA, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Thailand, among others.
However, most countries have signed it.
I don't have access to Israel's manual of war cited in the commentary, but I would assume it is fairly similar to the US manual, which states as follows:
Quote5.19 SIEGES AND ENCIRCLED AREAS
It is lawful to besiege enemy forces. Commanders must seek to make arrangements to
permit the passage of certain consignments and should seek to make arrangements for the
passage of certain categories of civilians, and of religious and medical personnel. Different rules
apply to blockade.589
5.19.1 Siege and Encirclement Permissible. It is lawful to besiege enemy forces, i.e., to
encircle them with a view towards inducing their surrender by cutting them off from
reinforcements, supplies, and communications with the outside world.
590 In particular, it is
permissible to seek to starve enemy forces into submission.
5.20 STARVATION
Starvation is a legitimate method of warfare, but it must be conducted in accordance with
the principles of distinction and proportionality, as well as other law of war rules. Starvation of
civilians as a method of combat is also prohibited in non-international armed conflict.608
5.20.1 Starvation – Distinction. It is a legitimate method of war to starve enemy
forces.
609 For example, it is permitted to destroy food intended as sustenance for enemy forces with a view towards weakening them and diverting their resources.610 Enemy forces, for the
purpose of this rule, means those persons constituting military objectives.611
Starvation specifically directed against the enemy civilian population, however, is
prohibited.612 For example, it would be prohibited to destroy food or water supplies for the
purpose of denying sustenance to the civilian population.
5.20.2 Starvation – Proportionality. Military action intended to starve enemy forces,
however, must not be taken where it is expected to result in incidental harm to the civilian
population that is excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated to be gained.613
Feasible precautions to reduce the risk of harm to the civilian population or other
reasonable measures to mitigate the burden to the civilian population may also be warranted
when seeking to starve enemy forces.
614 For example, it may be appropriate to seek to
compensate civilians whose food has been inadvertently destroyed.615 Moreover, an Occupying Power would have additional duties to ensure food and water for the civilian population.
616
5.20.3 Starvation and Other Law of War Rules. Starvation as a method of warfare must
comply with other applicable law of war rules. For example, it would be unlawful to poison
food or water.617 Additionally, starvation, for example, may involve sieges or encirclement,
blockades, attacks, or the seizure and destruction of enemy property.618 In each case, the rules
applicable to those situations must be followed.
The US manual provisions on this subject seem consistent with the AP rule, notwithstanding the lack of an official US signature.
Based on these materials, I do not see how a conclusion could be reached NOW about the legality of Israel's siege of Gaza. It is premature. There is no reason to believe the siege lacks connection with legitimate military objectives and good reason to think that such a connection exists given the apparent plans for a ground offensive. Cutting off electricity is permissible. Cutting of food and water to an entire 2 million person civilian population is not permissible if it results in starvation without opening corridors for either relief or flight. But Gaza has not run out of supplies yet. If Israel simply remains in its current posture and blocks all supplies it will be violating international law if it fails to open up relief corridors. But if it proceeds expeditiously to a ground offensive and then takes reasonable steps to feed the civilian population, it will be in compliance.
What do you have quoted sure seems to sound like the Israelis are offside.
You Otto and others may be interested in hearing the interview for yourselves.
https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-91-the-early-edition/clip/16015161-understanding-canadian-politicians-response-israel-hamas-conflict
I understand Pf. Byers has expertise in international law and specifically the law of war, as he literally wrote a book on the subject.
However, his claims the Israel is violating international law by failing to supply electricity and fuel does not seem to be supported by any of written sources. His statement: "the siege does not distinguish between civilians and militants and is therefore illegal" is simply not correct other than perhaps as a matter of his own aspirational opinion. The AP commentary and the US gloss I quoted above contemplates that siege warfare is not prohibited by international law even though civilians will be impacted. Obviously, Israel has no means of denying supplies specifically to Hamas militants only. There are limitations based on concepts of proportionality and feasibility but after mentioning them, Pf. Byers then proceeds to ignore them in presenting his conclusion.
It appears that Israel is massing very substantial forces for an imminent assault, an enormous logistical undertaking and one under the circumstances requiring the most rigorous operational security. Yet Pf. Byers does not discuss the feasibility of simultaneously opening up flight corridors for 2 million people or of organizing and vetting relief convoys. Of course, if the status quo persists for months with IDF forces simply remaining in place and enforcing a siege, that analysis would change. But it seems to me Pf. Byers is leaping to judgment without warrant and in contravention to the very legal principles he admits apply to this situation.
Right, something to remember is the laws of war never tried to criminalize war itself--the United Nations sought to stop aggressive wars as a principle, but when the Security Council became dysfunctional a few seconds after the Soviets realized they were doing it wrong when they let the UNSC vote on the Korean War, that concept has basically died. This wouldn't be considered an offensive war in any case, Israel was attacked, on its own territory--not even in the territory that is broadly considered Palestinian, but in territory that was Israel's as part of the 1947 UN partition plan.
A lot of really weird international law claims people are making about Israel would make it almost impossible to prosecute a war, which again, not how the laws of war were designed. They were designed to minimize the brutality of war, and done with a recognition you can't just ban war by legislative fiat--so you have to make amends with reality.
Military necessity is a valid justification for many things in war, and that is also often ignored. It doesn't give you carte blanche.
People are also willfully confusing the requirements of an occupying power with a power at war--Israel was arguably an occupying power of Gaza (even that is complex due to the nature of the Gaza "walling off"), but they have formally declared war against Hamas lead Gaza. They are allowed to siege their strongholds, they are allowed to bomb them in ways that are designed to facilitate an eventual invasion. They are allowed to do those things even if it kills civilians.
The laws of war prohibit certain specific technologies (most of those laws are in later GC APs that have not been signed by Israel), and the deliberate targeting of noncombatants.
I notice a lot of these pundits try to introduce terms like "collective punishment", which are usually used in evaluating the behavior of an occupying power responding to criminality or rebel activity. E.g. a village has a sniper shoot a soldier, so the army punishes the whole village. It stretches the traditional usage of the term "collective punishment" to the brink of absurdity to classify a pre-invasion bombing campaign as "collective punishment" because their bombs are hitting parties who weren't directly involved in the attack.
That isn't how it works. That would be like saying the Allies weren't allowed to shell the beaches of Normandy, since some of those shells could hit civilian targets, and the civilians weren't the ones who declared war on the Allies. Like...no. That isn't what collective punishment means. It isn't collective punishment to wage war against someone who attacked you.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 12, 2023, 12:52:08 PMI understand Pf. Byers has expertise in international law and specifically the law of war, as he literally wrote a book on the subject.
However, his claims the Israel is violating international law by failing to supply electricity and fuel does not seem to be supported by any of written sources. His statement: "the siege does not distinguish between civilians and militants and is therefore illegal" is simply not correct other than perhaps as a matter of his own aspirational opinion. The AP commentary and the US gloss I quoted above contemplates that siege warfare is not prohibited by international law even though civilians will be impacted. Obviously, Israel has no means of denying supplies specifically to Hamas militants only. There are limitations based on concepts of proportionality and feasibility but after mentioning them, Pf. Byers then proceeds to ignore them in presenting his conclusion.
It appears that Israel is massing very substantial forces for an imminent assault, an enormous logistical undertaking and one under the circumstances requiring the most rigorous operational security. Yet Pf. Byers does not discuss the feasibility of simultaneously opening up flight corridors for 2 million people or of organizing and vetting relief convoys. Of course, if the status quo persists for months with IDF forces simply remaining in place and enforcing a siege, that analysis would change. But it seems to me Pf. Byers is leaping to judgment without warrant and in contravention to the very legal principles he admits apply to this situation.
What you have said is not consistent with the text you quoted earlier.
As just one example:
QuoteStarvation is a legitimate method of warfare, but it must be conducted in accordance with
the principles of distinction and proportionality, as well as other law of war rules. Starvation of
civilians as a method of combat is also prohibited in non-international armed conflict.608
5.20.1 Starvation – Distinction. It is a legitimate method of war to starve enemy
forces.
609 For example, it is permitted to destroy food intended as sustenance for enemy forces with a view towards weakening them and diverting their resources.610 Enemy forces, for the
purpose of this rule, means those persons constituting military objectives.611
Nothing there says Israel can knowingly starve civilians and armed forces. The professor's point is that there also needs to be distinctions made between civilian and military targets.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 12, 2023, 02:12:16 PMRight, something to remember is the laws of war never tried to criminalize war itself--the United Nations sought to stop aggressive wars as a principle, but when the Security Council became dysfunctional a few seconds after the Soviets realized they were doing it wrong when they let the UNSC vote on the Korean War, that concept has basically died. This wouldn't be considered an offensive war in any case, Israel was attacked, on its own territory--not even in the territory that is broadly considered Palestinian, but in territory that was Israel's as part of the 1947 UN partition plan.
A lot of really weird international law claims people are making about Israel would make it almost impossible to prosecute a war, which again, not how the laws of war were designed. They were designed to minimize the brutality of war, and done with a recognition you can't just ban war by legislative fiat--so you have to make amends with reality.
Military necessity is a valid justification for many things in war, and that is also often ignored. It doesn't give you carte blanche.
People are also willfully confusing the requirements of an occupying power with a power at war--Israel was arguably an occupying power of Gaza (even that is complex due to the nature of the Gaza "walling off"), but they have formally declared war against Hamas lead Gaza. They are allowed to siege their strongholds, they are allowed to bomb them in ways that are designed to facilitate an eventual invasion. They are allowed to do those things even if it kills civilians.
The laws of war prohibit certain specific technologies (most of those laws are in later GC APs that have not been signed by Israel), and the deliberate targeting of noncombatants.
I notice a lot of these pundits try to introduce terms like "collective punishment", which are usually used in evaluating the behavior of an occupying power responding to criminality or rebel activity. E.g. a village has a sniper shoot a soldier, so the army punishes the whole village. It stretches the traditional usage of the term "collective punishment" to the brink of absurdity to classify a pre-invasion bombing campaign as "collective punishment" because their bombs are hitting parties who weren't directly involved in the attack.
That isn't how it works. That would be like saying the Allies weren't allowed to shell the beaches of Normandy, since some of those shells could hit civilian targets, and the civilians weren't the ones who declared war on the Allies. Like...no. That isn't what collective punishment means. It isn't collective punishment to wage war against someone who attacked you.
Well, yes, the rules were created to protect civilian populations. Not to make war easy. If your interpretation was accepted the rules become meaningless.
Apparently Russia has said nothing to Israel.
Not even the smallest of words of condolence.
And Israel is pissed.
It sees that it has made an active effort to remain neutral on Ukraine despite Russia obviously being in the wrong there and completely against Israels other allies. It expected at least a little sorry in return.
Given the stories of Russia smuggling weapons in too...
Hopefully this can be sorted quick and with a minimum of further bloodshed. As interesting times ahead with a solid Israel - Ukraine vs Iran - Russia.
Quote from: Josquius on October 12, 2023, 02:40:31 PMAs interesting times ahead with a solid Israel - Ukraine vs Iran - Russia.
I sure hope not. And if that does occur, I sure hope the Russian nukes don't work.
They don't.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 12, 2023, 02:53:55 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 12, 2023, 02:40:31 PMAs interesting times ahead with a solid Israel - Ukraine vs Iran - Russia.
I sure hope not. And if that does occur, I sure hope the Russian nukes don't work.
I don't see Russia going nuclear over Israel bombing the shit out of Irans drone factories and warehouses.
Even with Israeli troops in ukraine, which is so unlikely to go off into sillyville, I don't think trying to nuke Israel would be their go to.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 12, 2023, 02:35:40 PMNothing there says Israel can knowingly starve civilians and armed forces. The professor's point is that there also needs to be distinctions made between civilian and military targets.
I think we read the words differently. "Starvation is a legitimate method of warfare" seems pretty straightforward.
The question is not whether there is a distinction between civilian and military targets; of course that distinction exists. The real question is with respect to the conduct of siege warfare - which is lawful under international law - how can that distinction be feasibly operationalized in particular situations? Armies do not and cannot lay siege to specific, designated individuals, they lay siege to geographic positions, and everyone in that position is necessarily impacted. That is especially so dealing with an opponent like Hamas, whose standard M.O. involves blurring civilian-militant distinctions and using civilian buildings, facilities and human bodies for self-protection and to conduct military activities.
The real issue is what sort of obligation Israel has to facilitate humanitarian assistance consistent with its legitimate interest in denying resources to Hamas. At this stage it is way too premature to be throwing around judgments.
My sense is that the Professor has jumped the gun to make accusations without adequate foundation. He may have done so in the belief that the Israeli government is staffed by bad actors who are looking for excuses to run roughshod over international norms. He may be right about it but IMO it makes matters worse to make knee jerk claims before sufficient justification exists. That feeds the opposing narrative that whatever Israel does will always be condemned so why try?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 12, 2023, 02:37:40 PMWell, yes, the rules were created to protect civilian populations. Not to make war easy. If your interpretation was accepted the rules become meaningless.
The rules were created on that understanding that states regretfully are going to engage in war, but given that what rules realistically can be imposed that will limit the negative impacts of war on civilian populations but that states will still accept as consistent with their perceived rights to purse nationald defense and security obligations? It is a balance between competing considerations, which is why many of the rules are not bright line but use "rule of reason" concepts like proportionality and feasibility.
If you interpret the rules in a way that forces combatants to place the safety of enemy populations over the safety and security of their own populations and armed forces, the rules become meaningless because no combatant will abide by them.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 12, 2023, 05:45:26 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 12, 2023, 02:35:40 PMNothing there says Israel can knowingly starve civilians and armed forces. The professor's point is that there also needs to be distinctions made between civilian and military targets.
I think we read the words differently. "Starvation is a legitimate method of warfare" seems pretty straightforward.
The question is not whether there is a distinction between civilian and military targets; of course that distinction exists. The real question is with respect to the conduct of siege warfare - which is lawful under international law - how can that distinction be feasibly operationalized in particular situations? Armies do not and cannot lay siege to specific, designated individuals, they lay siege to geographic positions, and everyone in that position is necessarily impacted. That is especially so dealing with an opponent like Hamas, whose standard M.O. involves blurring civilian-militant distinctions and using civilian buildings, facilities and human bodies for self-protection and to conduct military activities.
The real issue is what sort of obligation Israel has to facilitate humanitarian assistance consistent with its legitimate interest in denying resources to Hamas. At this stage it is way too premature to be throwing around judgments.
My sense is that the Professor has jumped the gun to make accusations without adequate foundation. He may have done so in the belief that the Israeli government is staffed by bad actors who are looking for excuses to run roughshod over international norms. He may be right about it but IMO it makes matters worse to make knee jerk claims before sufficient justification exists. That feeds the opposing narrative that whatever Israel does will always be condemned so why try?
You are right. We are definitely reading the words differently. You are reading out the word "but" after the phrase that starvation can be used while I am not reading it out.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 11, 2023, 11:05:47 PMI can barely understand politics in the US, and I live here and interact regularly with Trump voters. I definitely can't understand politics in Israel. What you say makes sense; logic suggests that there should be accountability for such a massive security failure, especially one so easily traceable to ministry policy of monomaniacal focus on WB settlements. Everyone knows Bibi is corrupt and played out; his only card left was a rep for "security" and he just presided over Israel's worst security catastrophe in 50 years. But what do I know? If logic prevailed this shameful excuse of a government never would have got near to power in the first place, much less endured this long.
You're totally right.
I think the main thing I just keep thinking is that Israel's been incredibly divided in recent years and Saturday's attacks land directly on those divides. Tonight you have people lighting a candle for each victim, reading their names and saying "their blood is on your hands" outside the house of a minister. The word I keep thinking is that it'll be combustible, and that the politics will affect Israel's response in ways we don't know - I've no idea. And it may be unpredictable.
But also that I think the psychological shock is going to be profound and I think unpredictable. Israel's sense of security and perhaps invulnerability was earned. Again, I've no idea what that will mean.
Edit: I just think that in talk of "Israel's 9/11" we also think about the broad unity and support for Bush - I really don't think that's what seems to be happening.
Edit: And on this point Jerusalem post reporting that 86% of respondents (including 79% of coalition supporters) say the attack was a failure of Israel's leadership. 94% say the government must bear some responsibility for the lack of security readiness, over 75% say the goverment holds most of the responsibility - and over 50% think both Netanyahu and the defence minister should resign once military operations are over.
QuoteI just saw a story about several CEOs asking for names of Harvard students that wrote a statement blaming Israel for the Hamas attacks, openly saying that the intention was to blacklist them from employment. For the strong supporters of "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences", are you okay with this?
Broadly speaking I think political belief should not be grounds for dismissal.
Speech that is unlawful - for example certain hate speech or public order offences - shouldn't be protected in the same way, even if it is based on the same political belief. But it also shouldn't necessarily mean dismissal, but that's more a judgement call.
I also think there are some political beliefs that are not, to nick a phrase, "worthy of respect in a democratic society" for example through a clash with someone else's fundamental rights (even if not unlawful) - for example if they were targetting Jews or Israelis in some way (harassment, mocking etc). I'd say that could be grounds for dismissal.
I'm not sure I'd necessarily support a proper blacklist in any context.
Edit: Although on double standards I am very uncomfortable that the FA is apparently not lighting up Wembley Arch in Israeli colours because they are concerned about the response - it has been lit up in French, Turkish and Ukrainin colours in solidarity. The FA has taken stances on BLM and LGBT+ rights. I think that has been all correct, but I feel like perhaps they shouldn't and should just say they're "neutral"/apolitical etc.
Especially when, today, two Jewish schools in London have had to close for security reasons. Including the 300 year old Jewish Free School which, so far, has had two former pupils among the 4 identified British victims (of over 10) - which is incredibly grim.
Israeli commandos retaking a military post near gaza. Pretty sanitized and they rescue a group of Israelis at the end. Apparently the IDF identifies friend from foe by having them recite Shema Israel. ^_^
https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1712579906423431208 (https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1712579906423431208)
Not foolproof. Should have asked them to pronounce shibboleth.
1.1 million people must evacuate northern Gaza. This seems like a prelude to Israel trying to drive the whole population into Egypt and daring them to stop them. This is going to spiral completely out of control. :(
https://www.cnn.com/webview/middleeast/live-news/israel-news-hamas-war-10-12-23/index.html?adobe_mc=TS%3D1697169907%7CMCMID%3D65993415993841894238424722505577525822%7CMCAID%3D2FFE3D54BD348460-40000C5A2A4AAEC9%7CMCORGID%3D7FF852E2556756057F000101%40AdobeOrg&iid=cnn-mobile-app
QuoteUnited Nations team leaders in Gaza on Thursday were informed by their liaison officers in the Israeli military that the entire population north of Wadi Gaza should evacuate to southern Gaza within 24 hours, according to Stephane Dujarric the spokesperson for the UN secretary general.
Israel gave the message to the UN team in Gaza at just before midnight local time on Thursday, the UN said.
"This amounts to approximately 1.1 million people. The same order applied to all UN staff and those sheltered in UN facilities — including schools, health centres and clinics," the UN statement said. "The United Nations considers it impossible for such a movement to take place without devastating humanitarian consequences."
The UN's statement added: "The United Nations strongly appeals for any such order, if confirmed, to be rescinded avoiding what could transform what is already a tragedy into a calamitous situation."
I don't think this is a prelude to Israel trying to drive the whole population into Egypt. For one, Israel knows Egypt won't let them, the border is not physically that big. It isn't likely to happen.
It seems more likely to me Israel is actually following its obligations as a country that seems to at least care about the formal requirements of the laws of war (we can always debate how much it follows them in practice), which require minimization of civilian casualties.
Israel is essentially attempting to do that by making it fairly clearly large military operations will be happening in the Northern half of Gaza, and people in that area could very easily be hurt or killed in the cross fire.
Most likely, since that is where Gaza City is, and Israel has had intel studying Gaza for 15 years, they likely believe the core of Hamas's prepared tunnels and other infrastructure is up there, and they intend to dismantle it. The fewer Gazans in their homes when that happens, the better--both for IDF strategically, and for humanitarian reasons.
I find takes like this really confusing:
QuoteProgressive US Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has denounced Israel's push to remove more than 1.1 million Palestinians from northern Gaza in an apparent effort to pave the way for a ground invasion of the territory.
"Any person can see that ordering 1+ million people to move in under 24 hours is not possible. It is unacceptable," the congresswoman wrote in a social media post.
"The UN has already deemed the order 'impossible' without 'devastating humanitarian consequences'. Humanity is at stake. Nearly half are children. We must halt this."
Would she prefer they not warn the civilians at all, and just tell them "well, we are conducting a major invasion, which will include artillery, tanks, and other heavy equipment fighting in urban warfare likely for the next month or more, stay in your houses right in the middle of this and hope for the best."
These people confuse me. No army in history has held off an invasion because it might be inconvenient for the civilian population of their enemy.
It highlights the unreality of the Byers kind of critique. The rules speak of feasibility; obviously it is not feasible to simultaneously stage and carry out an enormous military incursion in a dense urban area while simultaneously arranging for either evacuation or relief for over 1 million civilians mixed in indiscriminately with un-uniformed fighters. The IDF is just following the Alice in Wonderland logic by making this obviously equally infeasible request that half the population immediately self relocate to the other half of the Strip.
The bottom line is that what the OSC and her fellow really are complaining about is war. I have some sympathy for that view - war is bad. But Israel's decision to wage war is hardly unreasonable under these circumstances and international law permits them to do so.
The danger in casually throwing around allegations of international law violations is that if such violations do occur in the future - which very well may happen - the credibility of the complainants will have already been damaged.
Quote from: chipwich on October 12, 2023, 10:34:05 PMNot foolproof. Should have asked them to pronounce shibboleth.
(https://clarabartonmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/I-understood-that-reference.gif)
I expect that evacuating 1.1 million people in 24 hours is not possible.
To what degree is it expected that Israel will provide medical aid to Palestinian civilian wounded?
It seems like medical capabilities in Palestine are likely massively degraded given the blockade, impact of any evacuation efforts, and the coming collateral damage.
That UN PR flack had some beautiful prose.
Well, the IDF issues a warning to civilians to evacuate thereby confirming to the enemy that yes they are going in and going to wreak havoc. Hamas in response tells those civilians to stay put. Tells you everything you need to know about the two sides.
Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2023, 03:36:26 AMWell, the IDF issues a warning to civilians to evacuate thereby confirming to the enemy that yes they are going in and going to wreak havoc. Hamas in response tells those civilians to stay put. Tells you everything you need to know about the two sides.
Evacuate to....?
I'd read more into this that Israel plans to show little regard for civilians and is covering its arse.
Israel has a history of trying to minimize civilian casualties. Unlike Hamas the Israeli leadership do not scream for the blood of the enemy civilians. They are still, even now, dropping leaflets warning civilians to GTFO before strikes.
The Palestinian side, be it Fatah or Hamas or whatever, on the other hand has a history of trying to create political pressure by maximizing exposure of their own casualties. And for that to work they have often put civilians in harms way. Hamas forcing civilians to remain in buildings that are going to be bombed and so on. The only way Hamas has to win this thing is to make the western world turn on Israel and they can only do that by playing the "dead civilians" and "think of the poor children" cards. Hamas has a history of being totally and completely ruthless with no regard what so ever about their own populations well-being.
Israel telling the population to GTFO is probably sincere, they are not after the civilians, they are after Hamas and Hamas-supporters. It's very much in their interest to not have pictures of dead civilians cabled out over the world.
So we have a situation where it's in Hamas interest to maximize civilian suffering and in Israels interest to minimize it.
Quote from: Threviel on October 13, 2023, 04:49:16 AMIsrael has a history of trying to minimize civilian casualties. Unlike Hamas the Israeli leadership do not scream for the blood of the enemy civilians. They are still, even now, dropping leaflets warning civilians to GTFO before strikes.
The Palestinian side, be it Fatah or Hamas or whatever, on the other hand has a history of trying to create political pressure by maximizing exposure of their own casualties. And for that to work they have often put civilians in harms way. Hamas forcing civilians to remain in buildings that are going to be bombed and so on. The only way Hamas has to win this thing is to make the western world turn on Israel and they can only do that by playing the "dead civilians" and "think of the poor children" cards. Hamas has a history of being totally and completely ruthless with no regard what so ever about their own populations well-being.
Israel telling the population to GTFO is probably sincere, they are not after the civilians, they are after Hamas and Hamas-supporters. It's very much in their interest to not have pictures of dead civilians cabled out over the world.
So we have a situation where it's in Hamas interest to maximize civilian suffering and in Israels interest to minimize it.
Not exactly comparing like with like there though.
Israel has the firepower to completely wipe Gaza clean. Hamas is pushing the absolute max its capable of with the relatively small causalities it inflicts on Israel.
I don't doubt most of Israel would love it if they could push a button and kill everyone related to Hamas without harming a single innocent fly. But against this desire not to kill civilians they've also a desire to kill Hamas at all costs. They've got to find a balance somewhere in the middle.
Minimising casualties isn't a binary. Israel does it to some extent like western militaries. But there's a very valid debate as to whether they usually do this enough and at the current moment especially whether they will lower their standards.
Also this is a dodgy line of thought that I'm sadly seeing a lot online. Hamas are evil shits. Thats beyond doubt... But that they're awful doesn't give Israel permission to act the same way in return when most of the people who'll be killed have nothing to do with Hamas. "They're not as bad as Hamas" is a pretty terrible defence if they're still not taking enough care to minimise civilian causalities.
Quote from: Josquius on October 13, 2023, 05:00:57 AMNot exactly comparing like with like there though.
Israel has the firepower to completely wipe Gaza clean. Hamas is pushing the absolute max its capable of with the relatively small causalities it inflicts on Israel.
The real world is not a computer game where the sides have to be evenly matched. Neither is morality relative to military power.
Quote from: Josquius on October 13, 2023, 05:00:57 AMI don't doubt most of Israel would love it if they could push a button and kill everyone related to Hamas without harming a single innocent fly. But against this desire not to kill civilians they've also a desire to kill Hamas at all costs. They've got to find a balance somewhere in the middle.
Minimising casualties isn't a binary. Israel does it to some extent like western militaries. But there's a very valid debate as to whether they usually do this enough and at the current moment especially whether they will lower their standards.
Minimizing casualties is not the same as accepting no casualties. Hamas hides behind civilians, breaking international law in the process. Israel goes after military targets hiding behind civilians, following international law in the process. If all you had to do to be invincible was to hide behind a civilian then no democracy could ever win a war.
They have obviously lowered their standards, it is a real shooting war, not a police action.
Quote from: Josquius on October 13, 2023, 05:00:57 AMAlso this is a dodgy line of thought that I'm sadly seeing a lot online. Hamas are evil shits. Thats beyond doubt... But that they're awful doesn't give Israel permission to act the same way in return when most of the people who'll be killed have nothing to do with Hamas. "They're not as bad as Hamas" is a pretty terrible defence if they're still not taking enough care to minimise civilian causalities.
Do please define "enough care to minimise civilian causalities". And whilst you are at it tell us in a realistic manner how Israel can wage war, win against Hamas and at the same time follow your definition.
Quote from: Threviel on October 13, 2023, 05:10:46 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 13, 2023, 05:00:57 AMNot exactly comparing like with like there though.
Israel has the firepower to completely wipe Gaza clean. Hamas is pushing the absolute max its capable of with the relatively small causalities it inflicts on Israel.
The real world is not a computer game where the sides have to be evenly matched. Neither is morality relative to military power.
Quote from: Josquius on October 13, 2023, 05:00:57 AMI don't doubt most of Israel would love it if they could push a button and kill everyone related to Hamas without harming a single innocent fly. But against this desire not to kill civilians they've also a desire to kill Hamas at all costs. They've got to find a balance somewhere in the middle.
Minimising casualties isn't a binary. Israel does it to some extent like western militaries. But there's a very valid debate as to whether they usually do this enough and at the current moment especially whether they will lower their standards.
Minimizing casualties is not the same as accepting no casualties. Hamas hides behind civilians, breaking international law in the process. Israel goes after military targets hiding behind civilians, following international law in the process. If all you had to do to be invincible was to hide behind a civilian then no democracy could ever win a war.
They have obviously lowered their standards, it is a real shooting war, not a police action.
Quote from: Josquius on October 13, 2023, 05:00:57 AMAlso this is a dodgy line of thought that I'm sadly seeing a lot online. Hamas are evil shits. Thats beyond doubt... But that they're awful doesn't give Israel permission to act the same way in return when most of the people who'll be killed have nothing to do with Hamas. "They're not as bad as Hamas" is a pretty terrible defence if they're still not taking enough care to minimise civilian causalities.
Do please define "enough care to minimise civilian causalities". And whilst you are at it tell us in a realistic manner how Israel can wage war, win against Hamas and at the same time follow your definition.
No.
That's a shit tonne of work. People devote their full time career to drafting such plans.
Besides, I don't believe Israel's current plan is public knowledge so even if I was so inclined to meet this bad faith challenge how would I suggest improvements?
All we can do is not get carried away with the die muslims die hysteria infecting the internet and keep pressure on Israel to behave themselves and remember they're held to a much higher standard than terrorists.
I'm just trying to nuance the "Israel bad bad bad" message. Looking at the two sides and their supporters across the world it just astonishes me that otherwise fully functional adults do not support Israel in this.
Quote from: Threviel on October 13, 2023, 05:30:24 AMI'm just trying to nuance the "Israel bad bad bad" message. Looking at the two sides and their supporters across the world it just astonishes me that otherwise fully functional adults do not support Israel in this.
Likewise I think we need nuance to the "Muslims bad bad bad. Israel always 100% good" message. I find it astonishing that otherwise fully functional adults are getting on board with the calls for extreme vengeance.
I think you will find those calls mostly in your head.
But hey, at least you have North Korea, Russia and Iran in your corner. Friends are nice.
Quote from: Threviel on October 13, 2023, 05:38:26 AMI think you will find those calls mostly in your head.
You mean like the Hamas support in yours?
QuoteBut hey, at least you have North Korea, Russia and Iran in your corner. Friends are nice.
They're in your corner :contract:
I should get back to work instead. :mellow:
In one corner, there are people who displace others to take their land.
In the other corner, there are people who murder civilians indiscriminately. Neither are "good" but if one of these two sides must win I know which one I want to.
Quote from: Josquius on October 13, 2023, 05:39:37 AMQuote from: Threviel on October 13, 2023, 05:38:26 AMI think you will find those calls mostly in your head.
You mean like the Hamas support in yours?
QuoteBut hey, at least you have North Korea, Russia and Iran in your corner. Friends are nice.
They're in your corner :contract:
:huh:
Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2023, 06:00:28 AMIn one corner, there are people who displace others to take their land.
In the other corner, there are people who murder civilians indiscriminately. Neither are "good" but if one of these two sides must win I know which one I want to.
I'd say more in one corner there's those who support might makes right, you choose a side and support that side to the hilt; anyone who questions that side even a little is evil incarnate and deserves no mercy.
And in the other corner there's those who recognise the world is complicated and it is possible to both be against the recent Hamas attacks and Israel's general oppression. We are worried about whats to come and want an outcome that minimises suffering all round.
Jos, have you ever considered expanding your rhetorical toolbox beyond "I know you are, but what am I?"
Quote from: DGuller on October 13, 2023, 08:51:00 AMJos, have you ever considered expanding your rhetorical toolbox beyond "I know you are, but what am I?"
Not when faced with a projected ad hom no.
Quote from: Josquius on October 13, 2023, 08:36:41 AMQuote from: Tamas on October 13, 2023, 06:00:28 AMIn one corner, there are people who displace others to take their land.
In the other corner, there are people who murder civilians indiscriminately. Neither are "good" but if one of these two sides must win I know which one I want to.
I'd say more in one corner there's those who support might makes right, you choose a side and support that side to the hilt; anyone who questions that side even a little is evil incarnate and deserves no mercy.
And in the other corner there's those who recognise the world is complicated and it is possible to both be against the recent Hamas attacks and Israel's general oppression. We are worried about whats to come and want an outcome that minimises suffering all round.
Don't you feel like the worst pogrom in many many decades is perhaps not the best background picture for all this "yes but it is illegal occupation!" talk? It kind of confirms that Hamas was right to do it: the cause of Palestinians have not suffered because of it in the eyes of those who were already vocally supporting them, but there is sure more media attention on the conflict. So: beheading Jewish babies seems like a net positive for them, especially if the international pressure will prevent Israel from doing anything drastic to discourage further raids.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 13, 2023, 12:41:16 AMIt highlights the unreality of the Byers kind of critique. The rules speak of feasibility; obviously it is not feasible to simultaneously stage and carry out an enormous military incursion in a dense urban area while simultaneously arranging for either evacuation or relief for over 1 million civilians mixed in indiscriminately with un-uniformed fighters. The IDF is just following the Alice in Wonderland logic by making this obviously equally infeasible request that half the population immediately self relocate to the other half of the Strip.
The bottom line is that what the OSC and her fellow really are complaining about is war. I have some sympathy for that view - war is bad. But Israel's decision to wage war is hardly unreasonable under these circumstances and international law permits them to do so.
The danger in casually throwing around allegations of international law violations is that if such violations do occur in the future - which very well may happen - the credibility of the complainants will have already been damaged.
It also highlights the degree to which you guys are going to look the other way when an atrocity is about to be committed because Israel is a special case. The Israelis know that population has nowhere to go because it was Israel that created those conditions. Now Israel gets a pass because it gives 24 hours for about a million people to leave and they have nowhere to go?
I predict that the next thing that will happen is Israel will claim that those who did not vacate can be considered as supporters of Hamas and therefore valid targets of war and you guys will simply say, "Yep, that Byers guy is smart and all, wrote the book, but doesn't really know how the real world works."
Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2023, 10:18:28 AMDon't you feel like the worst pogrom in many many decades is perhaps not the best background picture for all this "yes but it is illegal occupation!" talk? It kind of confirms that Hamas was right to do it: the cause of Palestinians have not suffered because of it in the eyes of those who were already vocally supporting them, but there is sure more media attention on the conflict. So: beheading Jewish babies seems like a net positive for them, especially if the international pressure will prevent Israel from doing anything drastic to discourage further raids.
Not really.
When emotions are understandably high is when we should be most aware of what we stand for and resist our basest impulses to support an eye for an eye.
The Palestinian cause absolutely has suffered due to these attacks. And thats totally ignoring the siege and strikes we've seen so far.
Hamas expected these attacks would rally more of the muslim world to their side but the whole kidnapping children and murdering babies thing- turns out your average muslim isn't a fan.
I've heard some rumours (take with a pinch of salt) even the Hamas leadership has been shocked at quite how far their people went with some of the atrocities.
Sure they've got themselves top of the news for a week or two... but not all publicity is good publicity. And odds are good the media's attention will start to wane when its Palestinian babies dying.
So no. I don't see how hoping Israel is careful and minimises civilian causalities makes this a win for Hamas.
Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2023, 06:00:28 AMIn one corner, there are people who displace others to take their land.
In the other corner, there are people who murder civilians indiscriminately. Neither are "good" but if one of these two sides must win I know which one I want to.
All the civilians in Gaza murdered civilians? Israel is at war with Hamas. I have no trouble with that. If Israel destroys Hamas that is definitely a benefit to all, including the Palestinians.
But as Professor Byers has clearly explained, there are limits Israel must observe in that war which includes not willfully killing civilians who are in Gaza.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 13, 2023, 10:33:56 AMIt also highlights the degree to which you guys are going to look the other way when an atrocity is about to be committed because Israel is a special case. The Israelis know that population has nowhere to go because it was Israel that created those conditions. Now Israel gets a pass because it gives 24 hours for about a million people to leave and they have nowhere to go?
I predict that the next thing that will happen is Israel will claim that those who did not vacate can be considered as supporters of Hamas and therefore valid targets of war and you guys will simply say, "Yep, that Byers guy is smart and all, wrote the book, but doesn't really know how the real world works."
What is the "atrocity that is about to be committed"? And how exactly would you propose Israel carry out the military operations that you concede are legitimate? You do understand that Hamas militants don't walk around with flashing neon terrorists signs? That there is no way to supply food and electricity to civilians in Gaza without Hamas requisitioning it for themselves?
Minority Report was a Hollywood movie, not a documentary. You can't actually convict someone of precrime.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 13, 2023, 10:33:56 AMI predict that the next thing that will happen is Israel will claim that those who did not vacate can be considered as supporters of Hamas and therefore valid targets of war and you guys will simply say, "Yep, that Byers guy is smart and all, wrote the book, but doesn't really know how the real world works."
This won't happen.
Yeah, quick, someone find an outlier in the other direction that we can nullify that Byers dude with.
Even thinking beyond raw morality.... It's all connected.
QuoteCRISIS IN THE MAKING?
As if the Gaza situation could get any worse, Israel has warned 1 million Gazans to get out of the northern half of the area by tonight. The population is a good 2 million and just on half of them are under 18 years of age and legally speaking, children. Around 400,000 are under five. There's not a lot to do in Gaza at night.
While everyone knows there's a humanitarian crisis coming, there's no stopping the Israelis who, from the top down equate all Palestinians with Hamas and Hamas as Nazis. Israeli rage is off the scale. You can hardly blame them for feeling as they do. Maybe the Palestinian people will finally decided they've had enough of Hamas which rules with an iron fist and is appallingly corrupt on a good day.
However this is not the only dire humanitarian crisis in the making.
Further east, Pakistan has been in a state of economic melt down following disastrous climate driven floods last year. These affected almost a third of its 220 million people, shut down electrical supplies and industry nationwide and ruined crops, left millions homeless and devastated much of its key infrastructure.
On top of that the debt crisis was already looming. Along with it a spate of religious militants suicide bombed crowds and religious centres.
These suicide bombers, have for the most part - 13 out of 16 cases - been Afghan nationals from inside the 1.3 million refugees living in Pakistan, who escaped the war and/or the Taliban.
Pakistan has now decided they're no longer welcome and is starting the process of blaming them for just about everything - and has declared them persona non grata - it wants the whole lot gone and back in Afghanistan. And soon.
Moving them is one thing - it's about to be winter in the mountains and it gets bitterly cold. The communications routes are poor and that's being generous. On top of that the Taliban have no place or time for aid agencies. They can barely maintain their own population as it is, they couldn't even begin to cope with the recent earthquake that killed over 2,000. How are they going to manage the reintegration of 1.3 million people who don't even want to be there? The current population of Afghanistan is said by the UN to be around 43 million - most of which live in sharp poverty. There are no resources to manage the returnees.
Pakistan is about to generate a crisis that could backfire on it badly, largely by blaming a population of refugees as scapegoats for its own multiple failures.
On top of this, one place the refugees will aim for is Iran - they'd rather go there than to the Taliban, but Iran will not permit another major ethnic group in or to expand. It has enough trouble with the Baluchi people in its SE - an area that crosses into Pakistan.
If these refugees can't get out easily they may well head for Europe - again. That's something Iran will facilitate. More refugees in Europe spurs on the far right parties - Germany's AFD, the French fascists of Marine Le Pen, Orban's Putin worshipping Fidesz.
It may seem a long way away, but if those Afghans and Gazans start turning up in droves on European borders next spring they may drive a political wind of change we could all do without. And that change strengthens the anti-Ukraine and pro Russia element. You can't get away from the facts.
Pakistan's problems eventually come calling at our doorstep. Action is needed before that happens, not when or if it does. Yet it hasn't even become a subject of concern anywhere, mired and distracted are we in Ukraine and Israel. Western governments don't have much time to stop Pakistan making a terrible mistake.
I hope there will not be a death toll of tens of thousands of Gazan civilians including young children, but I fear that there will be.
I suppose we will see.
400,000 of the 2 million people in Gaza are under 5? So roughly 200,000 children under five among the 1 million under evacuation orders?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 13, 2023, 10:44:19 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 13, 2023, 10:33:56 AMIt also highlights the degree to which you guys are going to look the other way when an atrocity is about to be committed because Israel is a special case. The Israelis know that population has nowhere to go because it was Israel that created those conditions. Now Israel gets a pass because it gives 24 hours for about a million people to leave and they have nowhere to go?
I predict that the next thing that will happen is Israel will claim that those who did not vacate can be considered as supporters of Hamas and therefore valid targets of war and you guys will simply say, "Yep, that Byers guy is smart and all, wrote the book, but doesn't really know how the real world works."
What is the "atrocity that is about to be committed"? And how exactly would you propose Israel carry out the military operations that you concede are legitimate? You do understand that Hamas militants don't walk around with flashing neon terrorists signs? That there is no way to supply food and electricity to civilians in Gaza without Hamas requisitioning it for themselves?
Minority Report was a Hollywood movie, not a documentary. You can't actually convict someone of precrime.
Not sure if serious. The Israelis have given a non sensical warning to justify the slaughter of civilians.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2023, 10:53:56 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 13, 2023, 10:33:56 AMI predict that the next thing that will happen is Israel will claim that those who did not vacate can be considered as supporters of Hamas and therefore valid targets of war and you guys will simply say, "Yep, that Byers guy is smart and all, wrote the book, but doesn't really know how the real world works."
This won't happen.
I apologize, you would not do that.
Quote from: Threviel on October 13, 2023, 11:12:38 AMYeah, quick, someone find an outlier in the other direction that we can nullify that Byers dude with.
Byers is not an outlier. He is the authority on the subject.
But I am sure you will find someone who will say the slaughter of civilians is ok.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 13, 2023, 10:39:16 AMQuote from: Tamas on October 13, 2023, 06:00:28 AMIn one corner, there are people who displace others to take their land.
In the other corner, there are people who murder civilians indiscriminately. Neither are "good" but if one of these two sides must win I know which one I want to.
All the civilians in Gaza murdered civilians? Israel is at war with Hamas. I have no trouble with that. If Israel destroys Hamas that is definitely a benefit to all, including the Palestinians.
But as Professor Byers has clearly explained, there are limits Israel must observe in that war which includes not willfully killing civilians who are in Gaza.
Do we have proof that Israel is willfully killing civilians? If Hamas is not keeping to the same rules, i.e. they hide among civilians, then Israel has a binary choice: do not fight Hamas, or accept causing excessive civilian casualties. I don't see a third way.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 13, 2023, 11:58:44 AMQuote from: Threviel on October 13, 2023, 11:12:38 AMYeah, quick, someone find an outlier in the other direction that we can nullify that Byers dude with.
Byers is not an outlier. He is the authority on the subject.
But I am sure you will find someone who will say the slaughter of civilians is ok.
Are we talking about the Canadian legal scholar and left wing politician Michael Byers?
For sure he seems to be one of the brightest minds out of the University of Saskatchewan, but the global authority on international law?
He's a left-wing activist with a history of naive pacifist views on lots of stuff going by wikipedia.
I spent two minutes trying to find your post to see if that's the guy or if I'm missing something.
I mean, he seems like a dude worth listening to, but nowhere near the stature to stand head and shoulders above his peers.
CC is literally foaming at the mouth over a mass murder for which there is no indication Israel plans to commit and certainly no evidence they are in the process of committing.
When I was a young man serving in Iraq, I deployed as part of an infantry battalion tasked with clearing out a notoriously bad neighborhood in the south of Baghdad. My duties often led me to be inside the battalion's Tactical Operations Center, and on many occasions I was there when some shit went down. This talk about minimizing civilian casualties reminds me of such an occasion.
One time I was present, we had live drone feed of an AQI mortar site manned by several men appearing to prepare it for firing, ammunition and all. They were taking their sweet time getting their weapon ready, which gave our mortar crews plenty of time to target them. As soon as our battalion commander gave the order, our mortars could fire and everyone there would become toothpaste.
Apparently, the drone operators/spotters also identified a woman and a child on site. This caused some hesitation from our battalion commander, but as soon as it appeared that the enemy mortar was going to fire, he gave the order for our mortars to destroy the mortar site. It was destroyed and I remember hearing that the drone spotter confirmed everyone killed.
Some days later, our mortar crewmen responsible for destroying that mortar site and killing everyone present were ordered to see the battalion chaplain. The chaplain asked everyone there if they had any regret whatsoever. No one said they did.
I think about that period of my life often, and current events and this discussion brought this specific episode to mind so I felt like sharing. There are no easy answers to this. I suspect many of today's people on the ground in Israel and Gaza, be they combatants or not, may come to develop similar memories as mine.
I think over time, as Western military superiority became more and more pronounced, some people developed an expectation that a military should approach the firefight the same way a SWAT team should approach a hostage situation. Obviously that expectation only applies to the Western force, the other side has no agency and all its actions are forced.
Berlin and Paris have basically banned all pro-Hamas/Palestine rallies. :hmm:
Sometimes Europe's lack of free speech is for the best.
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 13, 2023, 12:47:32 PMI think about that period of my life often, and current events and this discussion brought this specific episode to mind so I felt like sharing. There are no easy answers to this. I suspect many of today's people on the ground in Israel and Gaza, be they combatants or not, may come to develop similar memories as mine.
Thanks FunkMonk. :hug: :thumbsup:
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 13, 2023, 12:47:32 PMWhen I was a young man serving in Iraq, I deployed as part of an infantry battalion tasked with clearing out a notoriously bad neighborhood in the south of Baghdad. My duties often led me to be inside the battalion's Tactical Operations Center, and on many occasions I was there when some shit went down. This talk about minimizing civilian casualties reminds me of such an occasion.
One time I was present, we had live drone feed of an AQI mortar site manned by several men appearing to prepare it for firing, ammunition and all. They were taking their sweet time getting their weapon ready, which gave our mortar crews plenty of time to target them. As soon as our battalion commander gave the order, our mortars could fire and everyone there would become toothpaste.
Apparently, the drone operators/spotters also identified a woman and a child on site. This caused some hesitation from our battalion commander, but as soon as it appeared that the enemy mortar was going to fire, he gave the order for our mortars to destroy the mortar site. It was destroyed and I remember hearing that the drone spotter confirmed everyone killed.
Some days later, our mortar crewmen responsible for destroying that mortar site and killing everyone present were ordered to see the battalion chaplain. The chaplain asked everyone there if they had any regret whatsoever. No one said they did.
I think about that period of my life often, and current events and this discussion brought this specific episode to mind so I felt like sharing. There are no easy answers to this. I suspect many of today's people on the ground in Israel and Gaza, be they combatants or not, may come to develop similar memories as mine.
You have to wonder how they feel 20 years on, soldiers are really good at doing what is necessary to keep going in the field, but memories after can be rough.
There were a bunch of interviews conducted some years ago with B-29 crewman, most from Washington State, about their experiences participating in the firebombing raids on Japanese cities. Based on my own personal discussions over the years when more of them were alive, I had always seen most WW2 veterans as pretty stoic and unconflicted about their actions in war. But I think a lot of that was an outer shell that obscured the truth a bit, and a lot of these guys when they got really old were more willing to talk openly.
FWIW all the B-29 guys they interviewed said they had grave misgivings about what they did, and that it had haunted them for their entire lives. All of the B-29 crews were officers, and in the WW2 military that almost universally meant they were from a more educated pool of men than the enlisted ranks. These guys were flying at 5000' which is incredibly low altitude, and they all knew those bombs weren't hitting the Imperial Japanese Army, they knew what those incendiary devices were doing and who they were doing it to, and many reported that when they would come in behind a long line of B-29s that had laid down prior incendiary bombs you could smell the odor of cooking flesh as you passed over--multiple of these guys made that same comment.
Quote from: DGuller on October 13, 2023, 12:55:16 PMI think over time, as Western military superiority became more and more pronounced, some people developed an expectation that a military should approach the firefight the same way a SWAT team should approach a hostage situation. Obviously that expectation only applies to the Western force, the other side has no agency and all its actions are forced.
A return to February 2022 and the conundrum of war of choice/necessity.
Quote from: Legbiter on October 13, 2023, 01:05:11 PMBerlin and Paris have basically banned all pro-Hamas/Palestine rallies. :hmm:
All Jewish schools in Amsterdam closed too which is particularly grim.
Jesus.
Of course none of the countries in the Middle East will do shit to help the Palestinians. But for whatever reason the Netherlands must have pressure put on them.
Hams is setting up road block to keep people from evacuating the northern part of the strip.
Quote from: Valmy on October 13, 2023, 01:53:45 PMOf course none of the countries in the Middle East will do shit to help the Palestinians. But for whatever reason the Netherlands must have pressure put on them.
I don't understand what you mean here.
Over 6 THOUSAND rockets have been sent from Gaza to Israel in the last week. I've seen videos including live feeds of dudes without uniforms of course, setting up the launchers in a house's yard, in the street, from rooftops etc.
Of course not all the folks in Gaza support Hamas and civilian deaths of children is terrible. I'm not sure what some of these peaceniks want Israel to do exactly, though.
Those launchers are going to be hit.
Quote from: Valmy on October 13, 2023, 01:53:45 PMOf course none of the countries in the Middle East will do shit to help the Palestinians. But for whatever reason the Netherlands must have pressure put on them.
I think the Netherlands are afraid of the schools being attacked (Hamas has called for today to be a "Day of Rage" against the Americans and Zionists) not that they're permanently shutting down the Jewish schools.
Quote from: Savonarola on October 13, 2023, 02:09:21 PMQuote from: Valmy on October 13, 2023, 01:53:45 PMOf course none of the countries in the Middle East will do shit to help the Palestinians. But for whatever reason the Netherlands must have pressure put on them.
I think the Netherlands are afraid of the schools being attacked (Hamas has called for today to be a "Day of Rage" against the Americans and Zionists) not that they're permanently shutting down the Jewish schools.
Yes I know. I just meant European countries are really feeling pressure over this. Berlin and Paris shutting down protests. The Netherlands taking action to protect their Jewish citizens. As if these are the countries who could or should do something about this crisis.
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 13, 2023, 12:47:32 PMWhen I was a young man serving in Iraq, I deployed as part of an infantry battalion tasked with clearing out a notoriously bad neighborhood in the south of Baghdad. My duties often led me to be inside the battalion's Tactical Operations Center, and on many occasions I was there when some shit went down. This talk about minimizing civilian casualties reminds me of such an occasion.
One time I was present, we had live drone feed of an AQI mortar site manned by several men appearing to prepare it for firing, ammunition and all. They were taking their sweet time getting their weapon ready, which gave our mortar crews plenty of time to target them. As soon as our battalion commander gave the order, our mortars could fire and everyone there would become toothpaste.
Apparently, the drone operators/spotters also identified a woman and a child on site. This caused some hesitation from our battalion commander, but as soon as it appeared that the enemy mortar was going to fire, he gave the order for our mortars to destroy the mortar site. It was destroyed and I remember hearing that the drone spotter confirmed everyone killed.
Some days later, our mortar crewmen responsible for destroying that mortar site and killing everyone present were ordered to see the battalion chaplain. The chaplain asked everyone there if they had any regret whatsoever. No one said they did.
I think about that period of my life often, and current events and this discussion brought this specific episode to mind so I felt like sharing. There are no easy answers to this. I suspect many of today's people on the ground in Israel and Gaza, be they combatants or not, may come to develop similar memories as mine.
thanks for sharing this story.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 13, 2023, 02:01:28 PMOver 6 THOUSAND rockets have been sent from Gaza to Israel in the last week. I've seen videos including live feeds of dudes without uniforms of course, setting up the launchers in a house's yard, in the street, from rooftops etc.
Of course not all the folks in Gaza support Hamas and civilian deaths of children is terrible. I'm not sure what some of these peaceniks want Israel to do exactly, though.
Those launchers are going to be hit.
Well it is not that exactly. What the peaceniks, well the reasonable ones, claim is that decades of horrendous Israeli policies at the hands of Netanyahu and his far right allies have led to this situation. I think we all agree that killing civilians is bad and what Israel is going to do is bad. But yes it is hard to see in this specific situation how Israel could de-escalate at this juncture. And compounding the problem is that Palestine really has no friends to help them deal with the humanitarian aspects of this situation.
And I certainly have lots of sympathy for the poor fuckers caught in the Gaza strip. Most of them are young and have no responsibility for the shit situation they were born into. However, as an American it is hard not to remember that time we put considerable effort into trying to establish democratically elected governments of Palestine we could maybe work out a deal with in 2005 and 2006 and Gaza took the opportunity to freely and fairly elect Hamas fully indicating the majority of Palestinians living in Gaza had zero interest in peace and only believed in a delusional struggle for victory they could never win. Now who knows how realistic it was that we were going to help the Palestinians and work out a deal even if they elected some moderate peace party to power but that felt like the last chance Palestine was ever going to get help from us. But it was clear that a peace deal with Israel had no popular mandate in Gaza, at least at that time.
Though I have believed that the second Yitzhak Rabin's body hit the ground, any real hope for Palestine died with him. Obviously I didn't think that at the time, but I think events afterwards have demonstrated this. Yigal Amir: most successful terrorist since Gavrilo Princip.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 13, 2023, 10:33:56 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on October 13, 2023, 12:41:16 AMIt highlights the unreality of the Byers kind of critique. The rules speak of feasibility; obviously it is not feasible to simultaneously stage and carry out an enormous military incursion in a dense urban area while simultaneously arranging for either evacuation or relief for over 1 million civilians mixed in indiscriminately with un-uniformed fighters. The IDF is just following the Alice in Wonderland logic by making this obviously equally infeasible request that half the population immediately self relocate to the other half of the Strip.
The bottom line is that what the OSC and her fellow really are complaining about is war. I have some sympathy for that view - war is bad. But Israel's decision to wage war is hardly unreasonable under these circumstances and international law permits them to do so.
The danger in casually throwing around allegations of international law violations is that if such violations do occur in the future - which very well may happen - the credibility of the complainants will have already been damaged.
It also highlights the degree to which you guys are going to look the other way when an atrocity is about to be committed because Israel is a special case. The Israelis know that population has nowhere to go because it was Israel that created those conditions. Now Israel gets a pass because it gives 24 hours for about a million people to leave and they have nowhere to go?
I predict that the next thing that will happen is Israel will claim that those who did not vacate can be considered as supporters of Hamas and therefore valid targets of war and you guys will simply say, "Yep, that Byers guy is smart and all, wrote the book, but doesn't really know how the real world works."
It's impossible for me to tell whether the closing strawman argument is worse than the fact that you obviously have not read the post to which you are responding.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2023, 01:13:16 PMFWIW all the B-29 guys they interviewed said they had grave misgivings about what they did, and that it had haunted them for their entire lives. All of the B-29 crews were officers, and in the WW2 military that almost universally meant they were from a more educated pool of men than the enlisted ranks. These guys were flying at 5000' which is incredibly low altitude, and they all knew those bombs weren't hitting the Imperial Japanese Army, they knew what those incendiary devices were doing and who they were doing it to, and many reported that when they would come in behind a long line of B-29s that had laid down prior incendiary bombs you could smell the odor of cooking flesh as you passed over--multiple of these guys made that same comment.
Purely as an aside, and not negating your point at all, but
QuoteThe air crew of a B-29 generally included eleven people. Each occupation had a different MOS ("military operating specialty"), and required special training. The Airplane Commander, Pilot, Navigator and Bombardier were generally officers. The Flight Engineer, Radio Operator, and the Gunners were generally enlisted men. The Radarman was initially an enlisted man but was later an officer. The following is a list of the crew members, with the MOS indicated in square brackets.
Airplane Commander [1093]
Pilot (or Co-Pilot) [1092]
Navigator [1034]
Bombardier [1035]
Flight Engineer [737]
Radioman (or Radio Operator) [2756]
Radarman (or Radar Observer) [0142]
Central Fire Control (or CFC Gunner) [580]
Right Gunner [611]
Left Gunner [611]
Tail Gunner [611]
So, four or five of the eleven-man crew were commissioned.
Quote from: Valmy on October 13, 2023, 02:12:34 PMYes I know. I just meant European countries are really feeling pressure over this. Berlin and Paris shutting down protests. The Netherlands taking action to protect their Jewish citizens. As if these are the countries who could or should do something about this crisis.
My mistake, I misunderstood what you meant.
It's hard for me to fathom how little concern how little concern Hamas has for its own people. The "Day of Rage" can only make things worse for the Palestinians living in Europe; it justifies the perception that they are of the enemy within. If something does happen today it's going to make the western countries even less willing to accept Palestinian refugees.
Quote from: Savonarola on October 13, 2023, 02:56:46 PMIt's hard for me to fathom how little concern how little concern Hamas has for its own people. The "Day of Rage" can only make things worse for the Palestinians living in Europe; it justifies the perception that they are of the enemy within. If something does happen today it's going to make the western countries even less willing to accept Palestinian refugees.
It seems to me Hamas
wants Palestinians abroad to be "the enemy within". Since the latter understandably have no interest in this, the play by the former seems to be to whip up the ample xenophobic elements in the West to force the latter to become that enemy out of rage and desperation. I don't think it's going to work; it will just make life even more unpleasant for a bunch of minority communities.
Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2023, 12:27:54 PMDo we have proof that Israel is willfully killing civilians? If Hamas is not keeping to the same rules, i.e. they hide among civilians, then Israel has a binary choice: do not fight Hamas, or accept causing excessive civilian casualties. I don't see a third way.
I don't think we do. I think the discussion is in anticipation of the potential blood bath in Gaza.
Israel's challenge is to destroy Hamas as thoroughly as possible, without incurring undue and excessive civilian casualties. I have no doubt that that is their plan, though I expect that there may be some individually driven atrocities. There's also the question of what constitues "undue and excessive civilian casualties", where people will have different points of view.
To me the biggest question right now is how much death and suffering the civilian population in Gaza will have visited upon it.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 13, 2023, 01:56:09 PMHams is setting up road block to keep people from evacuating the northern part of the strip.
Absolute evil.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 13, 2023, 01:56:09 PMHams is setting up road block to keep people from evacuating the northern part of the strip.
If it were anybody but Hamas I would take this with a grain of salt and suspect this might be propaganda by their enemies.
But it is Hamas. Of course they are doing that. Why would we even suspect otherwise?
Quote from: grumbler on October 13, 2023, 02:44:56 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2023, 01:13:16 PMFWIW all the B-29 guys they interviewed said they had grave misgivings about what they did, and that it had haunted them for their entire lives. All of the B-29 crews were officers, and in the WW2 military that almost universally meant they were from a more educated pool of men than the enlisted ranks. These guys were flying at 5000' which is incredibly low altitude, and they all knew those bombs weren't hitting the Imperial Japanese Army, they knew what those incendiary devices were doing and who they were doing it to, and many reported that when they would come in behind a long line of B-29s that had laid down prior incendiary bombs you could smell the odor of cooking flesh as you passed over--multiple of these guys made that same comment.
Purely as an aside, and not negating your point at all, but
QuoteThe air crew of a B-29 generally included eleven people. Each occupation had a different MOS ("military operating specialty"), and required special training. The Airplane Commander, Pilot, Navigator and Bombardier were generally officers. The Flight Engineer, Radio Operator, and the Gunners were generally enlisted men. The Radarman was initially an enlisted man but was later an officer. The following is a list of the crew members, with the MOS indicated in square brackets.
Airplane Commander [1093]
Pilot (or Co-Pilot) [1092]
Navigator [1034]
Bombardier [1035]
Flight Engineer [737]
Radioman (or Radio Operator) [2756]
Radarman (or Radar Observer) [0142]
Central Fire Control (or CFC Gunner) [580]
Right Gunner [611]
Left Gunner [611]
Tail Gunner [611]
So, four or five of the eleven-man crew were commissioned.
Interesting--back when they did these interviews everyone listed was officer rank, so I probably just assumed the entire crews were. Maybe they didn't interview any of the enlisted because they were all dead or harder to locate, everyone in the interview series was at least 95.
Quote from: Savonarola on October 13, 2023, 02:56:46 PMMy mistake, I misunderstood what you meant.
It's hard for me to fathom how little concern how little concern Hamas has for its own people. The "Day of Rage" can only make things worse for the Palestinians living in Europe; it justifies the perception that they are of the enemy within. If something does happen today it's going to make the western countries even less willing to accept Palestinian refugees.
I think the willingness to accept Palestinian refugees in Europe - and probably North America also - is really quite low already.
Quote from: grumbler on October 13, 2023, 02:44:56 PMSo, four or five of the eleven-man crew were commissioned.
My grandfather served in the USAAF on B-29 aircrews during WWII (as a Radioman I believe) and he was an NCO of some sort. :yes:
QuoteAfter Israel warned Palestinians at midnight on Friday to evacuate northern Gaza within 24 hours, the State Department circulated internal memos to its officials warning them against using the phrases "de-escalation/ceasefire;" "end to violence/bloodshed" and "restoring calm," the Huffington Post reports.
The memo indicates that the US does not plan to call on Israel to exercise restraint when responding to the Hamas onslaught.
Quote from: Jacob on October 13, 2023, 03:12:51 PMQuote from: Savonarola on October 13, 2023, 02:56:46 PMMy mistake, I misunderstood what you meant.
It's hard for me to fathom how little concern how little concern Hamas has for its own people. The "Day of Rage" can only make things worse for the Palestinians living in Europe; it justifies the perception that they are of the enemy within. If something does happen today it's going to make the western countries even less willing to accept Palestinian refugees.
I think the willingness to accept Palestinian refugees in Europe - and probably North America also - is really quite low already.
Or anywhere else for that matter. Palestine has no friends at this point.
I mean there is Iran and Hezbollah but...they aren't so much friends as people who find Palestine useful.
I'm sure you've seen the news that Israeli commandos rescued ~250 hostages yesterday, killing 60 Hamas militants in the process.
Quote from: Jacob on October 13, 2023, 03:12:51 PMQuote from: Savonarola on October 13, 2023, 02:56:46 PMMy mistake, I misunderstood what you meant.
It's hard for me to fathom how little concern how little concern Hamas has for its own people. The "Day of Rage" can only make things worse for the Palestinians living in Europe; it justifies the perception that they are of the enemy within. If something does happen today it's going to make the western countries even less willing to accept Palestinian refugees.
I think the willingness to accept Palestinian refugees in Europe - and probably North America also - is really quite low already.
Not a single one should be allowed into Switzerland.
I don't know what the answer is, but the issue is that if Gaza Palestinians become refugees, there's no way they're coming back since Gaza is such a terrible place to live. EVen if it's just a refugee camp in Egypt it's bound to be better than Gaza. Plus then it's seen as Israel "winning" by driving out Palestinians - neighbouring Arab countries have quite deliberately chosen to not accept refugees, or to not allow those refugees in their country to assimilate, in order to keep up pressure on Israel.
Quote from: Valmy on October 13, 2023, 02:12:34 PMQuote from: Savonarola on October 13, 2023, 02:09:21 PMQuote from: Valmy on October 13, 2023, 01:53:45 PMOf course none of the countries in the Middle East will do shit to help the Palestinians. But for whatever reason the Netherlands must have pressure put on them.
I think the Netherlands are afraid of the schools being attacked (Hamas has called for today to be a "Day of Rage" against the Americans and Zionists) not that they're permanently shutting down the Jewish schools.
Yes I know. I just meant European countries are really feeling pressure over this. Berlin and Paris shutting down protests. The Netherlands taking action to protect their Jewish citizens. As if these are the countries who could or should do something about this crisis.
Can't blame the Eastern European countries for wanting none of that BS
I don't know that Israel is willing to expend the resources required, but I think for any kind of future here Hamas does have to be removed from control of Gaza.
Israel has a lot to answer for here, frankly. As the occupying power of Gaza for decades, Israel in fairly Machiavellian fashion declined to do anything to help Fatah in its brief civil war and allow Hamas to embed itself in Gaza--one can argue they just didn't want to get involved in such a war, but statements Netanyahu and others have made over the years strongly suggests the Israeli right largely saw Hamas' control of Gaza, at least back then--and probably until the last 8 days, as to their benefit. Why? Because it made Palestinian statehood basically impossible, the West was never going to demand Hamas be recognized as a real state. And as long as the PLO/PNA's control over Palestine was divided into a region it quasi-controls and one it doesn't, that was going to put huge hurdles in their way.
As the occupying power, even aside from moral justification after the attacks, I think Israel has an obligation to remove an entity like Hamas from power.
It also has an obligation of course to try and move towards some actual diplomatic solution down the road, but that will require Israeli society to reject maximalist conservatives from running their country (I don't hold my breath on that.)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2023, 03:12:47 PMInteresting--back when they did these interviews everyone listed was officer rank, so I probably just assumed the entire crews were. Maybe they didn't interview any of the enlisted because they were all dead or harder to locate, everyone in the interview series was at least 95.
Probably well-educated people are likelier to live to 95. It was an interesting story in any case.
It took me a time to find it because I remembered it as a NYT article, but it ends up it was a "New York Times Magazine" article, but here is the link if anyone was interested:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/09/magazine/we-hated-what-we-were-doing-veterans-recall-firebombing-japan.html
And also shows the danger of memory--2 of the guys in the article were tech sergeants, I believe there were more interviews conducted as well, but this article were the ones published by the NYT.
Hamas is turning on the charm...
https://twitter.com/IbtihalGaza/status/1712873286399311941 (https://twitter.com/IbtihalGaza/status/1712873286399311941)
I still think their PR needs some polish. It's perhaps not conveying the message they're going for.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2023, 12:46:14 PMCC is literally foaming at the mouth over a mass murder for which there is no indication Israel plans to commit and certainly no evidence they are in the process of committing.
CC is literally repeating what the world's leading scholar on the topic says. You are being wilfully blind now.
Just seen a interview with a Palestinian neuroplastic (sp?) surgeon at one of the hospitals and he said, people have been fleeing South in numbers, but that some who went to Kahn Younish have come back because it's not safe there and they felt they'd prefer to die in their homes rather than just die in the street.
He was in his third relocation since it started and said Hamas are saying people shouldn't leave the North because that would be another Nakbah. He didn't say he'd seen these roadblocks, but clearly was referring to several 2nd hand testimonies, at the least; later in the piece the film crew drove down the mainroad and didn't find any police roadblocks, but I guess any hamas officials or normal police will be keeping a very low profile given Israeli surveillance.
So many tens of thousands are on the road heading south, but it cannot be anywhere near the 1,100,000 the Isrealis are expecting/demanding to leave.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 13, 2023, 04:37:23 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2023, 12:46:14 PMCC is literally foaming at the mouth over a mass murder for which there is no indication Israel plans to commit and certainly no evidence they are in the process of committing.
CC is literally repeating what the world's leading scholar on the topic says. You are being wilfully blind now.
People have already explained to you the limitations to what he said.
FWIW I am increasingly convinced these spurious claims of "genocide" are being driven by Hamas / Iran et al. (Obviously not people in this thread, no one here is as agent of Iran.) My guess is they are dreaming they can summon up political pressure to stop the invasion--because some of these entities have spent 15 years investing in Hamas' control of Gaza, and the invasion puts all that at risk.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2023, 04:46:24 PMFWIW I am increasingly convinced these spurious claims of "genocide" are being driven by Hamas / Iran et al. (Obviously not people in this thread, no one here is as agent of Iran.) My guess is they are dreaming they can summon up political pressure to stop the invasion--because some of these entities have spent 15 years investing in Hamas' control of Gaza, and the invasion puts all that at risk.
I'm not so sure. I think a lot of people are stupid enough to effectively call for that without needing to be manipulated into it directly (obviously a key goal of the attacks themselves could be seen as an attempt to do this manipulation).
It's pretty obvious Israel was going to invade in response so this would have been forseen by those behind the attacks. Strikes me trying to get the response to be as harsh as possible was exactly their aim - though they have likely softened on that after the response to the attacks was not what they had hoped.
Quote from: Josquius on October 13, 2023, 05:20:55 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2023, 04:46:24 PMFWIW I am increasingly convinced these spurious claims of "genocide" are being driven by Hamas / Iran et al. (Obviously not people in this thread, no one here is as agent of Iran.) My guess is they are dreaming they can summon up political pressure to stop the invasion--because some of these entities have spent 15 years investing in Hamas' control of Gaza, and the invasion puts all that at risk.
I'm not so sure. I think a lot of people are stupid enough to effectively call for that without needing to be manipulated into it directly (obviously a key goal of the attacks themselves could be seen as an attempt to do this manipulation).
It's pretty obvious Israel was going to invade in response so this would have been forseen by those behind the attacks. Strikes me trying to get the response to be as harsh as possible was exactly their aim - though they have likely softened on that after the response to the attacks was not what they had hoped.
:hmm:
Quote from: mongers on October 13, 2023, 05:30:09 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 13, 2023, 05:20:55 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2023, 04:46:24 PMFWIW I am increasingly convinced these spurious claims of "genocide" are being driven by Hamas / Iran et al. (Obviously not people in this thread, no one here is as agent of Iran.) My guess is they are dreaming they can summon up political pressure to stop the invasion--because some of these entities have spent 15 years investing in Hamas' control of Gaza, and the invasion puts all that at risk.
I'm not so sure. I think a lot of people are stupid enough to effectively call for that without needing to be manipulated into it directly (obviously a key goal of the attacks themselves could be seen as an attempt to do this manipulation).
It's pretty obvious Israel was going to invade in response so this would have been forseen by those behind the attacks. Strikes me trying to get the response to be as harsh as possible was exactly their aim - though they have likely softened on that after the response to the attacks was not what they had hoped.
:hmm:
They didn't expect the massive outpouring of support for Israel even from the muslim world.
The child killing really fucked them.
I feel very old watching all these 20 years olds discovering the Palestinians and Israel plight. I also find them to be extremely naive. Like we were for the Iraq and Afghan wars.
Here is a post on X a colleague sent me.
Well worth the read.
https://twitter.com/Ike_Saul/status/1711780282725011520
QuoteIsaac Saul
@Ike_Saul
People ask me all the time if I am "pro-Israel" because I am a Jew who has lived in Israel, and my answer is that being "pro-Israel" or being "pro-Palestine" or being a "Zionist" does not properly capture the nuance of thought most people do or should have about this issue. It certainly doesn't capture mine.
I have a lot to say. I've spent the last 72 hours writing, texting, and talking to Israelis, Jews, Muslims, and Palestinians. Much of my reaction is going to piss off people on "both sides," but I am exhausted and hurting and I do not think there is any way to discuss this situation without being radically honest about my views. So I'm going to try to say what I believe to be true the best I can.
Let me start with this: It could have been me.
That's a hard thought to shake when watching the videos out of Israel — the concert goers fleeing across an empty expanse, the hostages being paraded through the streets, the people shot in the head at bus stops or in their cars. I went to those parties in the desert, I rubbed shoulders with Israelis and Arabs and Jews and Muslims, I could have easily accepted an invitation to some concert near Sderot and gone without a care, only to be indiscriminately slaughtered. Or, perhaps worse, taken hostage and tortured.
I don't believe Hamas is killing Israelis to liberate themselves, nor do I believe they are doing it to make peace. They're doing this because they represent the devil on the shoulder of every oppressed Palestinian who has lost someone in this conflict. They're doing it because they want vengeance. They are evening the score, and acting on the worst of our human impulses, to respond to blood with blood — an inclination that is easy to give in to after what their people have endured. It should not be hard to understand their logic — it is only hard to accept that humans are capable of being driven to this. Not defending Hamas is a very low bar to clear. Please clear it.
It's not possible to recap the entire 5,000 year history of people fighting over this strip of land in one newsletter. There are plenty of easily accessible places you can learn about it if you want to (and, by the way, many of you should — far too many people speak on this issue with an obscene amount of ignorance, loads of arrogance, and a narrow historical lens focused on the last few decades). But I'll briefly highlight a few things that are important to me.
In my opinion, the Jewish people have a legitimate historical claim to the land of Israel. Jews had already been expelled and returned and expelled again a half dozen times before the rise of the Muslim and Arab rule of the Ottoman Empire. Of course it's messy because we Jews and Arabs and Muslims are all cousins and descendents of the same Canaanites. But Arabs won the land centuries ago the same way Israel and Jews won it in the 20th century: Through conflict and war. The British defeated the Ottoman Empire and then came the Balfour Declaration, which amounted to the British granting the area to the Jewish people, a promise they'd later try to renege on — all before the wars that have defined the region since 1948.
That historical moment in the late 1940s was unique. After World War II, with many Arab and Muslim states already in existence, and after six million Jews were slaughtered, the global community felt it was important to grant the Jewish people a homeland. In a more logical or just world that homeland would have been in Europe as a kind of reparation for what the Nazis and others before them had done to the Jews, or perhaps in the Americas — like Alaska — or somewhere else. But the Jews wanted Israel, the British had taken to the Zionist movement, the British had conquered the Ottoman Empire which handed them control of the land, and America and Europe didn't want the Jews. As a result, we got Israel.
The Arab states had already rejected a partitioned Israel repeatedly before World War II and rejected it again after the Holocaust and the end of the war. They did not want to give up even a little bit of their land to a bunch of Jewish interlopers who were granted it all of a sudden by British interlopers who had arrived a hundred years prior. Who could blame them? It had been centuries since Jews lived there in large numbers, and now they wanted to return in waves as secularized Europeans. Many of us would probably react the same way. So, just as humans have done forever, they fought. The many existing Arab states turned against the burgeoning new Jewish state. One side won and one side lost. This is the brutal and broken and violent world we live in, but it is what created the global world order we have now.
Are Israelis and British people "colonizers" because of this 20th century history? Sure. But that view flattens thousands of years of history and conflict, and the context of World War I and World War II. I don't view Israelis and Brits as colonizers any more than the Assyrians or the Babylonians or the Romans or the Mongols or the Egyptians or the Ottomans who all battled over the same strip of land from as early as 800 years before Jesus's time until now. The Jews who founded Israel just happened to have won the last big battle for it.
You can't speak about this issue in a vacuum. You can't pretend that it wasn't just 60 years ago when Israel was surrounded on all sides by Arab states who wanted to wipe them off the face of the planet. Despite the balance of power shifting this century, that threat is still a reality. And you can't talk about that without remembering the only reason the Jews were in Israel in the first place was that they'd spent the previous centuries fleeing a bunch of Europeans who also wanted to wipe them off the face of the planet. And then Hitler showed up.
American partisans have a narrow view of this history, and an Americentric lens that is infuriating to witness. As Lee Fang perfectly put it, "Hamas would absolutely execute the ACAB lefties cheering on horrific violence against Israelis if they lived in Gaza & U.S. right-wingers blindly cheering on Israeli subjugation of Palestinians would rebel twice as violently if Americans were subjected to similar occupation."
And yet, many Americans only view modern Israel as the "powerful" one in this dynamic. Which is true — they obviously are. It isn't a fair fight and it hasn't been for decades because Israel's government is rich and resourceful, has the backing of the United States and most of Europe, and has an incredibly powerful military. At the same time, Israeli leadership has made technological and military advancements that have further tipped those scales — all while the Israeli government has helped create a resource-thin open air prison of two million Arabs in Gaza.
Conversely, Palestinians are devoid of any real unified leadership, and the Arab world is now divided on the issue of Palestine. Israel is unwilling to give the people in Gaza and the West Bank more than an inch of freedom to live. These are largely the refugees and descendents of the refugees of the 1948 and 1967 wars that Israel won. And you can't keep two million people in the condition that those in the Gaza strip live in and not expect events like this.
I'm sorry to say that while the blood on the ground is fresh. The Israelis who were killed in this attack largely have nothing to do with those conditions other than being born at a time when Israel and Jews have the upper hand in this conflict. Some of the victims weren't even Israeli — they were just tourists. This is why we describe them as "innocent" and why Hamas has only reaffirmed that they are a brutal terror organization with this attack — an organization that I hope is quickly toppled, for the sake of both the Palestinian people and the Israelis. But as someone with a deep love for Israel, with friends in danger and people I know still missing, it breaks my heart to say it but I'm saying it again because it remains perhaps the most salient point of context in a tangled mess full of centuries of context:
You cannot keep two million people living in the conditions people in Gaza are living in and expect peace.
You can't. And you shouldn't. Their environment is antithetical to the human condition. Violent rebellion is guaranteed. Guaranteed. As sure as the sun rising.
And the cycle of violence seems locked in to self-perpetuate, because both sides see a score to settle:
1) Israel has already responded with a vengeance, and they will continue to. Their desire for violence is not unlike Hamas's — it's just as much about blood for blood as any legitimate security measure. Israel will "have every right to respond with force." Toppling Hamas — a group, by the way, Israel erred in supporting — will now be the objective, and civilian death will be seen as necessary collateral damage. But Israel will also do a bunch of things they don't have a right to. They will flatten apartment buildings and kill civilians and children and many in the global community will probably cheer them on while they do it. They have already stopped the flow of water, electricity, and food to two million people, and killed dozens of civilians in their retaliatory bombings. We should never accept this, never lose sight that this horror is being inflicted on human beings. As the group B'Tselem said, "There is no justification for such crimes, whether they are committed as part of a struggle for freedom from oppression or cited as part of a war against terror." I mourn for the innocents of Palestine just as I do for the innocents in Israel. As of late, many, many more have died on their side than Israel's. And many more Palestinians are likely to die in this spate of violence, too.
Unfortunately, most people in the West only pay attention to this story when Hamas or a Palestinian in Gaza or the West Bank commits an act of violence. Palestinian citizens die regularly at the hands of the Israeli military and their plight goes largely unnoticed until they respond with violence of their own. Israel had already killed an estimated 250 Palestinians, including 47 children, this year alone. And that is just in the West Bank.
2) Every single time Israel kills someone in the name of self-defense they create a handful of new radicalized extremists who will feel justified in wanting to take an Israeli life in retribution sometime in the future. Half of Gaza's two million people are under the age of 19 — they know little besides Hamas rule (since 2006), Israeli occupation, blockades, and rockets falling from the sky. The suffering of these innocent children born into this reality is incomprehensible to me. They will suffer more now because of Hamas's actions and Israel's response, all through no fault of their own.
There is no way out of this pattern until one side exercises restraint or leaders on both sides find a new solution. Israelis will tell you that if Palestinians put their guns down then the war would end, but if Israel put their guns down they'd be wiped off the planet. I don't have a crystal ball and can't tell you what is true. But what I am certain of is that every time Israel kills more innocents they engender more rage and hatred and recruit more Palestinians and Arabs to the cause against them. There is no disputing this.
So, why did this happen now?
I'm not sure how to answer that question except to say it was bound to happen eventually. It was a massive policy and intelligence failure and Netanyahu should pay the price politically — he is a failed leader. Iran probably helped organize the attack and the money freed up by the Biden administration's prisoner swap probably didn't help the situation, either. Israel's increasingly extremist government and settlers provoking Palestinians certainly didn't help. Nor has going to the Al-Aqsa mosque and desecrating it. Nor do blockades and bombings and indiscriminate subjugation of a whole people. Nor does refusing to talk to non-terrorist leaders in Palestine. Nor does illegally continuing to expand and steal what is left of Palestinian land, as many Jews and Israelis have been doing in the 21st century despite cries from the global community to stop. A violent response was predictable — in fact, plenty of people did predict it.
Israel is forever stuffing these people into tinier and tinier boxes with fewer and fewer resources. But if you want to blame Israeli leaders for continuing to expand and settle land that does not belong to them (as I do), then you should also spare some blame for Palestinian leaders for repeatedly not accepting a partitioned Israel during the 20th century that could have led to peace (as I do).
Please also remember this: Hamas is still an extremist group. The Palestinian people do not have a government or leaders who legitimately represent their interests, and it sure as hell isn't Hamas. Will some Palestinians cheer and clap at the dead, or spit on them as they are paraded through Gaza? Yes they will. And they have. Many will also mourn because they loathe Hamas and know this will only make things worse. This is no different than how some Americans cheer at the dead in every single war we've ever fought. It's no different than the Israelis who set up lawn chairs to watch their government bomb Palestine and cheer them on, too. This doesn't mean Palestinians or Israelis or Americans are evil — it means some of them are giving in to their violent impulses, and their zealous feelings of righteous vengeance.
Solutions, you ask? I can't say I have any. If you came here for that, I'm sorry. The two-state solution looks dead to me. A three-state solution makes some sense but feels out of the view of all the people who matter and could make it happen. I wish a one-state solution felt realistic — a world of Israelis and Arabs and Muslims and Jews living side by side with equal rights, fully integrated and defused of their hate, is a version of Israel that I would adore. But it seems less and less realistic with every new act of violence.
Am I pro-Israel or pro-Palestine? I have no idea.
I'm pro-not-killing-civilians.
I'm pro-not-trapping-millions-of-people-in-open-air-prisons.
I'm pro-not-shooting-grandmas-in-the-back-of-the-head.
I'm pro-not-flattening-apartment-complexes.
I'm pro-not-raping-women-and-taking-hostages.
I'm pro-not-unjustly-imprisoning-people-without-due-process.
I'm pro-freedom and pro-peace and pro- all the things we never see in this conflict anymore.
Whatever this is, I want none of it.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2023, 04:44:02 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 13, 2023, 04:37:23 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2023, 12:46:14 PMCC is literally foaming at the mouth over a mass murder for which there is no indication Israel plans to commit and certainly no evidence they are in the process of committing.
CC is literally repeating what the world's leading scholar on the topic says. You are being wilfully blind now.
People have already explained to you the limitations to what he said.
And I have responded to those posts.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 13, 2023, 05:46:56 PMI feel very old watching all these 20 years olds discovering the Palestinians and Israel plight. I also find them to be extremely naive. Like we were for the Iraq and Afghan wars.
As mentioned
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2023, 04:46:24 PMFWIW I am increasingly convinced these spurious claims of "genocide" are being driven by Hamas / Iran et al. (Obviously not people in this thread, no one here is as agent of Iran.) My guess is they are dreaming they can summon up political pressure to stop the invasion--because some of these entities have spent 15 years investing in Hamas' control of Gaza, and the invasion puts all that at risk.
The UN has been the largest supporter of civilians in Gaza by far. The UN is calling on Israel to be more measured because it cares about civilians not being killed.
The UN which routinely, for many decades has condemned Israel for everything it does, and ignored basically every bad thing every Muslim or autocratic hell hole in the world does every day?
The same UN whose bodies are often captured by autocracies because maybe 30% of its membership have democratic governments?
Yeah I have never given two shits what the UN says about Israel and I never will, and this is a perfect example why.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 13, 2023, 05:58:48 PMHere is a post on X a colleague sent me.
Well worth the read.
You're right, that was worth reading.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2023, 06:34:04 PMThe UN which routinely, for many decades has condemned Israel for everything it does, and ignored basically every bad thing every Muslim or autocratic hell hole in the world does every day?
The same UN whose bodies are often captured by autocracies because maybe 30% of its membership have democratic governments?
Yeah I have never given two shits what the UN says about Israel and I never will, and this is a perfect example why.
I get it, you would rather to have Palestinians in Gaza suffer terribly. I am not one of those people and so we have a fundamental disagreement, which seems to be at the core of our disagreement over whether killing civilians in Gaza is ok.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uL5lx-wDDo
"Doxxing truck" on Harvard campus has rock thrown at it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 13, 2023, 05:58:48 PMHere is a post on X a colleague sent me.
I completely agree with everything this post on X said. Wow I never thought I would say that sentence.
I want to pick out this particular sentence:
QuoteYou cannot keep two million people living in the conditions people in Gaza are living in and expect peace.
This reality is something that takes me down some conspiratorial lines of thinking. It is just so hard to not look at this situation and not see cynical bad actors lurking in the shadows. Kind of like BB's post:
Quote from: Barrister on October 13, 2023, 03:25:08 PMI don't know what the answer is, but the issue is that if Gaza Palestinians become refugees, there's no way they're coming back since Gaza is such a terrible place to live. EVen if it's just a refugee camp in Egypt it's bound to be better than Gaza. Plus then it's seen as Israel "winning" by driving out Palestinians - neighbouring Arab countries have quite deliberately chosen to not accept refugees, or to not allow those refugees in their country to assimilate, in order to keep up pressure on Israel.
I mean are the Arab countries really this cynical and vile? Is it that farfetched of an idea?
And likewise the idea that Netanyahu and the Israeli far right have intentionally made peace impossible by tightening the screws on the Palestinians to trigger just this response to justify ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Palestinians to secure more land is pretty conspiratorial. Are they that cynical and vile? But...on the other hand is it that far fetched of an idea?
The fact that the people of Israel keep putting these gargoyles in power doesn't reflect well on them.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 13, 2023, 06:44:19 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2023, 06:34:04 PMThe UN which routinely, for many decades has condemned Israel for everything it does, and ignored basically every bad thing every Muslim or autocratic hell hole in the world does every day?
The same UN whose bodies are often captured by autocracies because maybe 30% of its membership have democratic governments?
Yeah I have never given two shits what the UN says about Israel and I never will, and this is a perfect example why.
I get it, you would rather to have Palestinians in Gaza suffer terribly. I am not one of those people and so we have a fundamental disagreement, which seems to be at the core of our disagreement over whether killing civilians in Gaza is ok.
The laws of war do not criminalize killing civilians--full stop. What I favor is Israel being able to reasonably self defend itself, and if it chooses to remove Hamas from power I support that.
I'm wondering out loud what Israel should have done differently as regards its policies towards Gaza.
What is the humane and benevolent way to respond to a statelet which was elected by the people there and which conducts intermittent attacks against your population?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2023, 07:25:38 PMI'm wondering out loud what Israel should have done differently as regards its policies towards Gaza.
What is the humane and benevolent way to respond to a statelet which was elected by the people there and which conducts intermittent attacks against your population?
They shouldn't have let Hamas take over, there was a Machiavellian element to that decision. Obviously they didn't want to keep occupying Gaza forever.
A core issue is really that after 2001 Israel moved too far to the right to reasonably address Gaza or the West Bank. The Israeli right doesn't want a two state solution, they want to annex the West Bank and "Gaza to go away", walling Gaza off and leaving it to Hamas was like a quarantine mindset and I don't know if they ever had a good plan for it long term beyond just hoping it didn't cause too much trouble. Now it has caused too much trouble.
There ultimately has to be political force within Israel that is willing to pursue a diplomatic solution--which most likely includes lengthy occupations, Israeli concessions on certain key issues, a reverse of some of the settlement activity of the last 15 years in the West Bank, and a host of other things. Israel's body politic is so far on the other side of all that right now that it will take basically a wave of political change to ever get to somewhere like this.
Demographically I also think it hurts that a lot of the Jewish immigrant population that has moved to Israel in the last 30 years are Jewish nationalist / conservative Orthodox, they have contributed to making Israel more extreme in its views on the overall conflict. Additionally the ultra-Orthodox Jews pump out a lot of kids per couple versus secular and liberal Jews, so unlike a lot of countries with entrenched conservatives where there is hope from future, more liberal generations--Israel seems likely to only become more extreme over time. I suspect even eventually to the degree it threatens its relationship with the United States; but we have a Democrat in the White House right now and it is obvious we are nowhere near that breaking point, Biden has given Israel unmitigated support and the Republicans would only have done so louder if they were in his shoes.
What's John Kirby doing doing interviews about the conflict?
Not seen that before from a US WH spokesman.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2023, 07:25:38 PMI'm wondering out loud what Israel should have done differently as regards its policies towards Gaza.
What is the humane and benevolent way to respond to a statelet which was elected by the people there and which conducts intermittent attacks against your population?
Not assassinated Yitzhak Rabin and not reward the assassin's ideology at the ballot box.
Quote from: Jacob on October 13, 2023, 07:50:15 PMNot assassinated Yitzhak Rabin and not reward the assassin's ideology at the ballot box.
And then what? Profit!!!??? What should a warm fuzzy Labour government in Israel have done in Gaza?
And of course Israel did not assassinate Rabin.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2023, 08:19:52 PMAnd then what? Profit!!!??? What should a warm fuzzy Labour government in Israel have done in Gaza?
And of course Israel did not assassinate Rabin.
Sorry, my bad. I should not have posted that. I'm not ready to play this game right now.
EDIT: I'm just upset that the last real attempt at deescalation and coexistence was ended by assassination, and that the assassin's political goals were realized. Who's to say how things would've gone if Yitzhak Rabin hadn't been murdered.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2023, 08:19:52 PMQuote from: Jacob on October 13, 2023, 07:50:15 PMNot assassinated Yitzhak Rabin and not reward the assassin's ideology at the ballot box.
And then what? Profit!!!??? What should a warm fuzzy Labour government in Israel have done in Gaza?
And of course Israel did not assassinate Rabin.
Don't know. But the Gaza situation as it currently exists did not come about until a decade after Rabin was killed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2023, 08:19:52 PMQuote from: Jacob on October 13, 2023, 07:50:15 PMNot assassinated Yitzhak Rabin and not reward the assassin's ideology at the ballot box.
And then what? Profit!!!??? What should a warm fuzzy Labour government in Israel have done in Gaza?
And of course Israel did not assassinate Rabin.
An Israeli did.
Yes, profit. In the form a of Israeli government that keeps on being led by someone who believed in the Oslo accords.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 13, 2023, 08:53:17 PMYes, profit. In the form a of Israeli government that keeps on being led by someone who believed in the Oslo accords.
What would this profit look like?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2023, 07:33:11 PMThey shouldn't have let Hamas take over, there was a Machiavellian element to that decision. Obviously they didn't want to keep occupying Gaza forever.
It seems to me that would broken the terms of the Oslo Accord with respect to Palestinian semi-autonomy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2023, 09:17:21 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2023, 07:33:11 PMThey shouldn't have let Hamas take over, there was a Machiavellian element to that decision. Obviously they didn't want to keep occupying Gaza forever.
It seems to me that would broken the terms of the Oslo Accord with respect to Palestinian semi-autonomy.
I actually don't believe it would have--Fatah, and the PLO/PNA viewed Hamas as illegitimate and fought a civil war with them--the internationally community largely recognizes PLO/PNA as the legitimate representative of Palestine (or even the Palestinian state for some.) International law wise it would have been assisting Fatah in suppressing rebellion.
Yasser Arafat would not have signed the treaty Rabin alive or not.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2023, 09:19:40 PMI actually don't believe it would have--Fatah, and the PLO/PNA viewed Hamas as illegitimate and fought a civil war with them--the internationally community largely recognizes PLO/PNA as the legitimate representative of Palestine (or even the Palestinian state for some.) International law wise it would have been assisting Fatah in suppressing rebellion.
Point taken.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2023, 07:17:05 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 13, 2023, 06:44:19 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2023, 06:34:04 PMThe UN which routinely, for many decades has condemned Israel for everything it does, and ignored basically every bad thing every Muslim or autocratic hell hole in the world does every day?
The same UN whose bodies are often captured by autocracies because maybe 30% of its membership have democratic governments?
Yeah I have never given two shits what the UN says about Israel and I never will, and this is a perfect example why.
I get it, you would rather to have Palestinians in Gaza suffer terribly. I am not one of those people and so we have a fundamental disagreement, which seems to be at the core of our disagreement over whether killing civilians in Gaza is ok.
The laws of war do not criminalize killing civilians--full stop. What I favor is Israel being able to reasonably self defend itself, and if it chooses to remove Hamas from power I support that.
You can look at all the UN resolution on Palestine here.
While true that none specifically condemn the enemies of Israel, they often ask belligerent to abide by a cease-fire agreement.
I don't think the UN can specifically condemn a terrorist organization. I know they already have various resolutions on terrorism though.
I also know most Arab countries voted against the last resolution to condemn Hamas in 2018. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Palestine)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2023, 07:25:38 PMI'm wondering out loud what Israel should have done differently as regards its policies towards Gaza.
What is the humane and benevolent way to respond to a statelet which was elected by the people there and which conducts intermittent attacks against your population?
Why do you guys keep seeing the question as if Gaza and the West Bank were two distinct entities, with two totally different, totally unrelated realities, like it was Canada and Germany?
Bad enough that Raz promotes apartheid saying the Palestinians were better off with no rights in an occupied territory living under the whims of a foreign government, but you come and make that argument about Gaza like the colonization of the West Bank and the sidelining of the Abbas government there had nothing to do with the rise of the Hamas.
Bibi was busy was defending murderous settlers. The IDF was camped in the colonies protecting the settlers who were killing Palestinians civilians living their daily lives. Not Hamas terrorists, not Djihadists, not suicide bombers, just regular civilians who happened to be Palestinians.
And the IDF was protecting the murderers. The Shin Bet warned the government about these kind of idiotic policies and what they would cause. The Americans warned Israel about what was going on in Gaza. The Egyptians warned Netanyahu about something major brewing in Gaza. But he didn't listen to anybody because the IDF was currently occupied protecting settlers in the West Bank. Colonization by extreme right wingers was more important than protecting leftist bobos near Gaza. That's the reality of it, and that's why there were 700 Israelis killed that day, totally helpless while the army was nowhere to be seen.
And now, Bibi is taking his frustration on the Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Giving 2hrs to evacuate 2 million people while they have no infrastructure. All while his supporters are cheering. And some people are defending it, while condemning the Palestinians who cheer the Israelis deaths. I just don't see how one is better than other.
This whole fucking mess is Bibi's fault who let it happen by his incompetence, and his supporters who cheered for him.
Gaza and the West Bank are intrinsically linked. As long as there's colonies and no real 2 state solutions, there'll be violence in the Middle East, or until there are no more Palestinians. Which seems to be the solution retained by Israel here.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 13, 2023, 09:30:55 PMYasser Arafat would not have signed the treaty Rabin alive or not.
I think he would have.
Quote from: viper37 on October 13, 2023, 09:50:33 PMBad enough that Raz promotes apartheid saying the Palestinians were better off with no rights in an occupied territory living under the whims of a foreign government, but you come and make that argument about Gaza like the colonization of the West Bank and the sidelining of the Abbas government there had nothing to do with the rise of the Hamas.
Where did I say that?
More on the Canceling of Palestine supporters.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/12/israel-gaza-war-social-media-job-firings/?fbclid=IwAR0X5yH65vWizl2NogSlWzFZN1mwVIEVr_qcyjPq8MDtQeejPti07d1N3D0
QuoteRyna Workman had a job offer lined up when the New York University law student wrote a message to the university's Student Bar Association saying Israel was solely to blame for the war with Hamas that has killed at least 1,300 people in Israel and more than 1,350 people in Gaza.
"Israel bears full responsibility for this tremendous loss of life," Workman wrote. "This regime of state-sanctioned violence created the conditions that made resistance necessary. I will not condemn Palestinian resistance."
But the post came with a consequence: Workman no longer has a job after law school.
"These comments profoundly conflict with Winston & Strawn's values as a firm," the Chicago-based law firm wrote in a news release. "Accordingly, the Firm has rescinded the law student's offer of employment."
The Israel-Gaza war is still in its first week, but some people in the United States and around the world have lost their jobs, or have faced discipline or backlash, for their criticism of Israel. The backlash has been directed toward people of different backgrounds, from a law student and an airline pilot to a basketball writer and an adult-content influencer.
The blowback has come at a time when at least 25 Americans have been killed since the cross-border assault by Hamas militants. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who arrived in Tel Aviv on Thursday in a show of support for Israel, is grappling with the issue of unaccounted-for Americans who may have been killed or taken hostage by Hamas. Meanwhile in Gaza, authorities warned of dire water and electricity shortages after Israel ordered a "full siege" of the densely populated, impoverished Palestinian enclave.
"Never tweet" turned into a Twitter meme years ago — long before the platform became X — as a way of warning people not to write online posts that could get them in serious trouble, or cost them their jobs. That idea has been put to the test during a war in which thousands of civilians have been killed in the days since the Hamas surprise attack on Saturday and the targeted counterstrikes Israel has launched on Gaza.
The backlash has played out at places such as Harvard University, where student groups are taking back their signatures in a letter that holds Israel "entirely responsible" for the violence. The fallout has resulted this week in a doxing truck coming to campus that displays the faces of the students critical of Israel.
On Sunday, Jackson Frank, a basketball reporter who had recently joined the PhillyVoice to cover the Philadelphia 76ers, criticized the franchise's statement supporting Israel and denouncing Hamas.
"Solidarity with Palestine always," he wrote in a post on X that has since been deleted.
The website responded by firing Frank this week, not long before the start of the NBA season.
"Mr. Frank is no longer employed by PhillyVoice.com," PhillyVoice chief executive Hal Donnelly said in a statement to the New York Post.
Frank, who said he will still be covering the team on his Patreon account, told The Washington Post in a statement that he stood by his comments "and condemn organizations for involving themselves in geopolitics without any sort of context or nuance."
"The Sixers and other sports organizations have not uttered a word, let alone criticized [Israel], about any of the violence Palestinians have endured for decades and are enduring as we speak from the settler-colonial power of Israel," Frank said.
Not long after Frank was fired, an Air Canada pilot was dismissed after he shared anti-Israel photos of himself during a protest in Montreal. StopAntiSemitism, a U.S.-based group, shared Instagram screenshots of Mostafa Ezzo wearing Palestinian colors while he was in his Air Canada pilot uniform. He was also seen holding a sign that made reference to Hitler: "Keep the world clean."
"Burn in hell," he wrote in a caption in a post.
Ezzo — an Air Canada first officer on 787s, according to his since-deleted LinkedIn page — was initially grounded Monday from work for his "unacceptable posts," with the airline saying, "We firmly denounce violence in all forms." The company announced Wednesday that Ezzo had been fired.
"We can confirm the pilot in question no longer works for Air Canada, following the process initiated on Monday," the airline wrote on X. Ezzo did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The backlash to people's Israel posts has stretched to all corners of the internet — including Playboy's Centerfold, a platform similar to OnlyFans that connects content creators to their fans. Hours into the war, Mia Khalifa, a Lebanese American adult-content influencer who had partnered with Playboy, began criticizing Israel to her more than 5.7 million followers on X.
"If you can look at the situation in Palestine and not be on the side of Palestinians, then you are on the wrong side of apartheid and history will show that in time," she wrote over the weekend.
After Khalifa continued to post her support of the Palestinian people, Playboy announced its decision to end its business relationship with the former adult-film star and delete her Centerfold channel. Her page has since been taken down.
"Over the past few days, Mia has made disgusting and reprehensible comments celebrating Hamas' attacks on Israel and the murder of innocent men, women and children," the company said. "We expect Mia to understand that her words and actions have consequences." Khalifa did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Musicians and actors have also faced backlash for their social media posts, though on a lesser scale. Actress Jamie Lee Curtis was criticized for publishing a post to Instagram that showed a photo of Palestinian children looking up to the sky with a caption that included "Terror from the skies" and an Israeli flag emoji. The post was deleted after some pointed out that the children in the photo were from the Palestinian territories, not Israel.
Something similar happened Wednesday with singer Justin Bieber, who shared a "Praying for Israel" post to his 293 million Instagram followers that showed a photo of destroyed buildings in Gaza instead of Israel. The pop star later replaced the photo with a post saying, "Praying for Israel," without an image.
"To [villainize] all Palestinians or all Israeli people to me seems wrong," he wrote in a post earlier in the day. "I'm not interested in choosing sides, but I am interested in standing with the families who have been brutally taken from us."
Still, some critics were surprised that Bieber and others would get key details wrong, and share them on social media, during the early days of the war. "Justin Bieber posting 'praying for Israel' using a picture of a destroyed Gaza is actually insane," one X user wrote.
Quote from: viper37 on October 13, 2023, 09:50:33 PMWhy do you guys keep seeing the question as if Gaza and the West Bank were two distinct entities, with two totally different, totally unrelated realities, like it was Canada and Germany?
Because they have two separate administrations with two distinctly different policies towards Israel.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2023, 07:17:05 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 13, 2023, 06:44:19 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2023, 06:34:04 PMThe UN which routinely, for many decades has condemned Israel for everything it does, and ignored basically every bad thing every Muslim or autocratic hell hole in the world does every day?
The same UN whose bodies are often captured by autocracies because maybe 30% of its membership have democratic governments?
Yeah I have never given two shits what the UN says about Israel and I never will, and this is a perfect example why.
I get it, you would rather to have Palestinians in Gaza suffer terribly. I am not one of those people and so we have a fundamental disagreement, which seems to be at the core of our disagreement over whether killing civilians in Gaza is ok.
The laws of war do not criminalize killing civilians--full stop. What I favor is Israel being able to reasonably self defend itself, and if it chooses to remove Hamas from power I support that.
I prefer the opinion of somebody who actually knows what they're talking about. You know the world leading expert on the topic.
But just to clarify, have you just endorsed the killing of civilians in Gaza?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 13, 2023, 10:03:19 PMMore on the Canceling of Palestine supporters.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/12/israel-gaza-war-social-media-job-firings/?fbclid=IwAR0X5yH65vWizl2NogSlWzFZN1mwVIEVr_qcyjPq8MDtQeejPti07d1N3D0
Still, some critics were surprised that Bieber and others would get key details wrong, and share them on social media, during the early days of the war. "Justin Bieber posting 'praying for Israel' using a picture of a destroyed Gaza is actually insane," one X user wrote.
[/quote]
This is why modern journalism sucks so bad. Especially from the WaPo...that is down at the Fox News level.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 13, 2023, 10:25:26 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2023, 07:17:05 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 13, 2023, 06:44:19 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2023, 06:34:04 PMThe UN which routinely, for many decades has condemned Israel for everything it does, and ignored basically every bad thing every Muslim or autocratic hell hole in the world does every day?
The same UN whose bodies are often captured by autocracies because maybe 30% of its membership have democratic governments?
Yeah I have never given two shits what the UN says about Israel and I never will, and this is a perfect example why.
I get it, you would rather to have Palestinians in Gaza suffer terribly. I am not one of those people and so we have a fundamental disagreement, which seems to be at the core of our disagreement over whether killing civilians in Gaza is ok.
The laws of war do not criminalize killing civilians--full stop. What I favor is Israel being able to reasonably self defend itself, and if it chooses to remove Hamas from power I support that.
I prefer the opinion of somebody who actually knows what they're talking about. You know the world leading expert on the topic.
But just to clarify, have you just endorsed the killing of civilians in Gaza?
I like that trick
1. Argue something an expert never argued--a position that is largely wrong in a trivially easy to prove sense.
2. Quote that expert and claim his words prove your position, despite them not actually saying the same thing.
3. Accuse another person of wrongthink whilst using 1&2 as some sort of ace in the hole
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2023, 11:23:23 PMI like that trick
1. Argue something an expert never argued--a position that is largely wrong in a trivially easy to prove sense.
2. Quote that expert and claim his words prove your position, despite them not actually saying the same thing.
3. Accuse another person of wrongthink whilst using 1&2 as some sort of ace in the hole
Unlike you cc runs a tight ship. The paperwork on Israel's side may be irregular, hence the traumatized nation must cease all offensive action.
Reports Israel shelled one of the routes south that they had designated as safe, killing over 70. Mostly women and children.
Yeah, I saw that reported on Al Jazeera with only Hamas as a source, and didn't seem like any other news has picked it up over night--and Al Jazeera no longer has the article up on their website--makes me question the accuracy of the report.
Quote from: Jacob on October 13, 2023, 06:42:22 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 13, 2023, 05:58:48 PMHere is a post on X a colleague sent me.
Well worth the read.
You're right, that was worth reading.
Yeah, seems pretty on point.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 14, 2023, 08:58:35 AMYeah, I saw that reported on Al Jazeera with only Hamas as a source, and didn't seem like any other news has picked it up over night--and Al Jazeera no longer has the article up on their website--makes me question the accuracy of the report.
CBC radio reported it through their reporter in the region this morning. But it looks like they have toned down that report in subsequent news reports to say that civilians were hit by fire, including aid workers, but the location and number of causalities is not clear.
Troubling that Israel has cancelled the agreement to let foreign nationals leave through the border with Egypt.
Quote from: Legbiter on October 13, 2023, 11:42:02 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2023, 11:23:23 PMI like that trick
1. Argue something an expert never argued--a position that is largely wrong in a trivially easy to prove sense.
2. Quote that expert and claim his words prove your position, despite them not actually saying the same thing.
3. Accuse another person of wrongthink whilst using 1&2 as some sort of ace in the hole
Unlike you cc runs a tight ship. The paperwork on Israel's side may be irregular, hence the traumatized nation must cease all offensive action.
Wait, you guys said the expert was wrong and did not understand how war is really fought because I guess you know more than someone who has dedicated their academic career to these issues. And now its more convenient to waive away the fact his views are inconsistent with yours by claiming he doesn't hold views inconsistent with yours.
Now that IS a neat trick.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 14, 2023, 08:16:06 AMReports Israel shelled one of the routes south that they had designated as safe, killing over 70. Mostly women and children.
I mean that seems really evil so I would probably want confirmation.
But...why not? Nothing seems beyond the pale in this conflict.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 14, 2023, 11:18:23 AMQuote from: Legbiter on October 13, 2023, 11:42:02 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2023, 11:23:23 PMI like that trick
1. Argue something an expert never argued--a position that is largely wrong in a trivially easy to prove sense.
2. Quote that expert and claim his words prove your position, despite them not actually saying the same thing.
3. Accuse another person of wrongthink whilst using 1&2 as some sort of ace in the hole
Unlike you cc runs a tight ship. The paperwork on Israel's side may be irregular, hence the traumatized nation must cease all offensive action.
Wait, you guys said the expert was wrong and did not understand how war is really fought because I guess you know more than someone who has dedicated their academic career to these issues. And now its more convenient to waive away the fact his views are inconsistent with yours by claiming he doesn't hold views inconsistent with yours.
Now that IS a neat trick.
The only "expert" who has shared your opinion here is yourself, despite your tortured attempts to 1) proudly proclaim there is a "world #1 expert in this topic" like expertise is ranked that way, 2) manipulate a quote from said expert to match your argument, you have not actually demonstrated that what you are saying is supported by the text of statutory international law or any meaningful interpretation of same.
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2023, 11:49:09 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 14, 2023, 08:16:06 AMReports Israel shelled one of the routes south that they had designated as safe, killing over 70. Mostly women and children.
I mean that seems really evil so I would probably want confirmation.
But...why not? Nothing seems beyond the pale in this conflict.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HmENXLFqzg&ab_channel=Military%26History
at around 8 minutes in: if it's the same it might just as well have been Hamas themselves.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2023, 10:05:04 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 13, 2023, 09:50:33 PMWhy do you guys keep seeing the question as if Gaza and the West Bank were two distinct entities, with two totally different, totally unrelated realities, like it was Canada and Germany?
Because they have two separate administrations with two distinctly different policies towards Israel.
It's a technicality. They're the same people living in the same area of the world who identify as one.
East Berliners and West Berliners were the same people living in two separate administrations with two distinctly different policies toward the USA. I don't think it would have been fair to bomb West Berlin in retaliation for an attack committed by Russian troops in East Berlin.
In any case, the point is moot.
The Israeli president has just declared there is no such thing as an innocent Palestinian civilian, they're all accomplice of the Hamas.
Kinda proves my point. It's not just ex Prime Ministers anymore, it's not just fringe politicians, it's not just rethoric, it's official policy.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 13, 2023, 10:00:16 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 13, 2023, 09:50:33 PMBad enough that Raz promotes apartheid saying the Palestinians were better off with no rights in an occupied territory living under the whims of a foreign government, but you come and make that argument about Gaza like the colonization of the West Bank and the sidelining of the Abbas government there had nothing to do with the rise of the Hamas.
Where did I say that?
You said they were better living while under the occupation of Israel, which meant they had no rights and were subject to arbitrary arrests, just like in the West Bank right now.
If you live under the occupation of a foreign country when you don't have the full rights of citizenship granted to other citizens, you are effectively a second class citizen.
Naftali Bennet on Palestinan civilians (https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/are-you-seriously-asking-me-about-palestinian-civilians-ex-israeli-pm-15374138)
When questioned about Palestinians civilians in hospitals on life support and babies on incubators, the ex president erupts in anger.
Israel is justifying its ethnic cleansing policies (https://theintercept.com/2023/10/14/hamas-israel-palestinian-authority/)
QuoteIsraeli President Isaac Herzog said this week that, as far as the military is concerned, there is little difference between Gaza's civilian population and Hamas, which has governed the besieged territory since 2007. "It's not true this rhetoric about civilians [being] not aware, not involved," Herzog said in the middle of an unprecedented Israeli bombing campaign in retaliation for Hamas's massacre of Israeli civilians last week. "They could have risen up, they could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d'etat."
Ah, yes. I see. The same civilians who can not get out of the Gaza strip, who can not get access to weapons, they are supposed to rise against the people with all the guns. It worked really well for Fatah over there back in 2007. I don't remember Israel helping the people who tried to fight Hamas back then. I don't recall Israel ever giving any support to those who protested against Hamas either.
Fuck those assholes. Like they weren't transparent from the start.
Quote from: viper37 on October 14, 2023, 05:49:47 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 13, 2023, 10:00:16 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 13, 2023, 09:50:33 PMBad enough that Raz promotes apartheid saying the Palestinians were better off with no rights in an occupied territory living under the whims of a foreign government, but you come and make that argument about Gaza like the colonization of the West Bank and the sidelining of the Abbas government there had nothing to do with the rise of the Hamas.
Where did I say that?
You said they were better living while under the occupation of Israel, which meant they had no rights and were subject to arbitrary arrests, just like in the West Bank right now.
If you live under the occupation of a foreign country when you don't have the full rights of citizenship granted to other citizens, you are effectively a second class citizen.
Yeah, I didn't say that.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 14, 2023, 06:09:01 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 14, 2023, 05:49:47 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 13, 2023, 10:00:16 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 13, 2023, 09:50:33 PMBad enough that Raz promotes apartheid saying the Palestinians were better off with no rights in an occupied territory living under the whims of a foreign government, but you come and make that argument about Gaza like the colonization of the West Bank and the sidelining of the Abbas government there had nothing to do with the rise of the Hamas.
Where did I say that?
You said they were better living while under the occupation of Israel, which meant they had no rights and were subject to arbitrary arrests, just like in the West Bank right now.
If you live under the occupation of a foreign country when you don't have the full rights of citizenship granted to other citizens, you are effectively a second class citizen.
Yeah, I didn't say that.
No, it's exactly what you meant when you falsely stated they were better of than Jordanians at the same time.
Oh... so we are going from "I said something" to "I meant something".
Quote from: Razgovory on October 14, 2023, 06:12:38 PMOh... so we are going from "I said something" to "I meant something".
You said they were better off living under the occupation.
Knowing what the occupation is like in the West Bank, it's pretty clear what the meaning is for Gaza.
Anyway. There won't be a Gaza for much longer.
So if get it right France is having to send 7000 soldiers to patrol cities because there has been not only that stabbing in that school but threats against the Louvre as well.
Because of a bloody middle east crisis is making radical Muslims there uppity. Ludicrous and kind of scary.
Quote from: Legbiter on October 13, 2023, 11:42:02 PMUnlike you cc runs a tight ship. The paperwork on Israel's side may be irregular, hence the traumatized nation must cease all offensive action.
Which is the traumatized nation?
Quote from: viper37 on October 14, 2023, 06:33:45 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 14, 2023, 06:12:38 PMOh... so we are going from "I said something" to "I meant something".
You said they were better off living under the occupation.
Knowing what the occupation is like in the West Bank, it's pretty clear what the meaning is for Gaza.
Anyway. There won't be a Gaza for much longer.
Yeah, you're a liar. You are so caught up in a frenzy you can't tell truth from fiction. I've heard Palestinians are being genocided for 20 years now. It wasn't true during the Intifada and it's not true now. Maybe you should take a break?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 14, 2023, 06:49:12 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 14, 2023, 06:33:45 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 14, 2023, 06:12:38 PMOh... so we are going from "I said something" to "I meant something".
You said they were better off living under the occupation.
Knowing what the occupation is like in the West Bank, it's pretty clear what the meaning is for Gaza.
Anyway. There won't be a Gaza for much longer.
Yeah, you're a liar. You are so caught up in a frenzy you can't tell truth from fiction. I've heard Palestinians are being genocided for 20 years now. It wasn't true during the Intifada and it's not true now. Maybe you should take a break?
We were talking about the citizens of Gaza, and you compared them with with Arab-Israelis:
QuoteThat's not a technicality. It's bullshit. You know that. There are some far right people in Israel's government. But Muslims still work and live in Israel. They have the right to vote, the right to speech and all the rights of modern democracy. The Israeli government for all it's faults didn't just shoot political enemies in the legs and throw them off buildings.
I told you to educate yourself about the occupation. To which you replied:
"Is anything I have written false? A Muslim living in Israel has rights. A Jew living in Palestine won't be living very long. The Arabs of the Gaza strip used to be fairly prosperous. They had a higher standard of living the Arabs of Jordan. Then Arafat launched the Second Intifada. "Which I demonstrated to be false.
You equated the occupation of Gaza to the conditions of the Isralei-Arabs, who are still facing discrimination, but much, much, much less so that a Palestinian living in an occupied zone in Gaza or the West Bank.
You are alluding that Palestinians would be better off living in occupied territories, subject to arbitrary rule of Israel than having their own State.
As for genocide, Israel has made its position clear, you have the official statements and the actions to back it up.
If you don't believe it, read a newspaper and open the tv.
Quote from: Tamas on October 14, 2023, 06:36:38 PMSo if get it right France is having to send 7000 soldiers to patrol cities because there has been not only that stabbing in that school but threats against the Louvre as well.
Because of a bloody middle east crisis is making radical Muslims there uppity. Ludicrous and kind of scary.
I don't know. It seems that all the persons of interests are Russian.
Quote from: viper37 on October 14, 2023, 05:45:27 PMEast Berliners and West Berliners were the same people living in two separate administrations with two distinctly different policies toward the USA. I don't think it would have been fair to bomb West Berlin in retaliation for an attack committed by Russian troops in East Berlin.
??
Then we agree. Bomb only East Berlin.
Quote from: viper37 on October 14, 2023, 06:56:51 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 14, 2023, 06:49:12 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 14, 2023, 06:33:45 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 14, 2023, 06:12:38 PMOh... so we are going from "I said something" to "I meant something".
You said they were better off living under the occupation.
Knowing what the occupation is like in the West Bank, it's pretty clear what the meaning is for Gaza.
Anyway. There won't be a Gaza for much longer.
Yeah, you're a liar. You are so caught up in a frenzy you can't tell truth from fiction. I've heard Palestinians are being genocided for 20 years now. It wasn't true during the Intifada and it's not true now. Maybe you should take a break?
We were talking about the citizens of Gaza, and you compared them with with Arab-Israelis:
QuoteThat's not a technicality. It's bullshit. You know that. There are some far right people in Israel's government. But Muslims still work and live in Israel. They have the right to vote, the right to speech and all the rights of modern democracy. The Israeli government for all it's faults didn't just shoot political enemies in the legs and throw them off buildings.
I told you to educate yourself about the occupation. To which you replied:
"Is anything I have written false? A Muslim living in Israel has rights. A Jew living in Palestine won't be living very long. The Arabs of the Gaza strip used to be fairly prosperous. They had a higher standard of living the Arabs of Jordan. Then Arafat launched the Second Intifada. "
Which I demonstrated to be false.
You equated the occupation of Gaza to the conditions of the Isralei-Arabs, who are still facing discrimination, but much, much, much less so that a Palestinian living in an occupied zone in Gaza or the West Bank.
You are alluding that Palestinians would be better off living in occupied territories, subject to arbitrary rule of Israel than having their own State.
As for genocide, Israel has made its position clear, you have the official statements and the actions to back it up.
If you don't believe it, read a newspaper and open the tv.
I will open my TV but I don't think I will find much in there. I said that the Gazans were more prosperous before Yasser Arafat came and started his war of terrorism. I do reject that idea that Palestinians have no rights under Israeli government. People who have their own state can be less prosperous than the people who do not have their own state.
When I brought up the millions of Muslims in Israel I was comparing them to the Jews who have to live Palestinian rule. Which there aren't any because the Palestinians killed them or drove them out. It was a way to compare the two different countries.
Seems like the US is concerned about escalation, they are sending a second aircraft carrier to the Eastern Med to deter such plans.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 14, 2023, 07:13:58 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 14, 2023, 05:45:27 PMEast Berliners and West Berliners were the same people living in two separate administrations with two distinctly different policies toward the USA. I don't think it would have been fair to bomb West Berlin in retaliation for an attack committed by Russian troops in East Berlin.
??
Then we agree. Bomb only East Berlin.
By your example, if a Stasi agent had killed civilians in West Berlin, NATO should have flattened East Berlin.
Thankfully, NATO powers never acted that way and always moderated their response.
Even the US moderated its response in Iraq and Afghanistan following suicide bombings.
Israel is determined to eradicate all infrastructures of Gaza and not just the Hamas. They don't want any kind of Palestinian presence anymore on their borders. It seems pretty obvious from the discourse and the actions.
Netanyahu has been humiliated and wants to take vengeance. His policies in the West Bank of protecting murderous settlers failed and the IDF was caught off guard, causing unnecessary deaths among Israeli civilians.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 14, 2023, 07:18:40 PMWhich there aren't any because the Palestinians killed them or drove them out.
You have a really weird conception of Palestine.
Ok, find me the number of Jewish occupants of Palestine expelled by the authorities there forced to live elsewhere.
Then find me the number of Palestinian Arabs expelled from Israel by the Jewish government.
Quote from: viper37 on October 14, 2023, 08:18:18 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 14, 2023, 07:18:40 PMWhich there aren't any because the Palestinians killed them or drove them out.
You have a really weird conception of Palestine.
Ok, find me the number of Jewish occupants of Palestine expelled by the authorities there forced to live elsewhere.
Then find me the number of Palestinian Arabs expelled from Israel by the Jewish government.
Yeah, the Palestinian's lost the war. So more of them lost their homes. The stated goal of the war was to drive the Jews into the sea. The 1940's were rough on anti-Semites.
My point was that Jews do tolerate Palestinians among them. The Palestinians do not tolerate Jews among them. Nor does any Arab country. They aren't keen on any minority really, but Jews will often be attacked on sight. Or anyone they think is a Jew.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 14, 2023, 08:49:51 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 14, 2023, 08:18:18 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 14, 2023, 07:18:40 PMWhich there aren't any because the Palestinians killed them or drove them out.
You have a really weird conception of Palestine.
Ok, find me the number of Jewish occupants of Palestine expelled by the authorities there forced to live elsewhere.
Then find me the number of Palestinian Arabs expelled from Israel by the Jewish government.
Yeah, the Palestinian's lost the war. So more of them lost their homes. The stated goal of the war was to drive the Jews into the sea. The 1940's were rough on anti-Semites.
Arabs and Jews were routinely killed in British Palestine, and it didn't change with the creation of Israel.
But I understand what you are saying. Losers of a war deserve to be expelled from their homes. It's all good. Duly noted. :)
QuoteMy point was that Jews do tolerate Palestinians among them. The Palestinians do not tolerate Jews among them. Nor does any Arab country. They aren't keen on any minority really, but Jews will often be attacked on sight. Or anyone they think is a Jew.
Up to a certain point. Keeping those rights is a constant fight. And once the West Bank is fully colonized and Gaza is no longer a threat, I doubt they'll keep their rights. There's a lot of people who want to decapitate them just for being Arabs and it's totally fine to have them in the government.
Quote from: viper37 on October 14, 2023, 08:14:04 PMBy your example, if a Stasi agent had killed civilians in West Berlin, NATO should have flattened East Berlin.
Are we talking about the same thing? I suggested a three state solution. Make permanent peace with the PA in the West Bank. Continue a policy of containment with Gaza and Hamas.
Quote from: viper37 on October 14, 2023, 09:02:44 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 14, 2023, 08:49:51 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 14, 2023, 08:18:18 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 14, 2023, 07:18:40 PMWhich there aren't any because the Palestinians killed them or drove them out.
You have a really weird conception of Palestine.
Ok, find me the number of Jewish occupants of Palestine expelled by the authorities there forced to live elsewhere.
Then find me the number of Palestinian Arabs expelled from Israel by the Jewish government.
Yeah, the Palestinian's lost the war. So more of them lost their homes. The stated goal of the war was to drive the Jews into the sea. The 1940's were rough on anti-Semites.
Arabs and Jews were routinely killed in British Palestine, and it didn't change with the creation of Israel.
But I understand what you are saying. Losers of a war deserve to be expelled from their homes. It's all good. Duly noted. :)
Is this a language problem? You keep saying I say something that I didn't say. I didn't say that they deserved it, it's something that happened because of a war. If the war had gone another way there would have been a second holocaust. Millions of Germans were displaced a few years earlier and nobody is to bent out of shape about that. Hell, 14 million people were displace with the creation of India and Pakistan. It was a rough time.
Do you think Israel has the right to exist? Does it have the right to defend itself?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 14, 2023, 09:52:15 PMAre we talking about the same thing? I suggested a three state solution. Make permanent peace with the PA in the West Bank. Continue a policy of containment with Gaza and Hamas.
I don't think Nethanyahu is willing to make a permanent peace with the PA in the West Bank. Hasn't his policy been one of continually expanding Jewish settlements there and looking away from settler violence against Palestinians?
Quote from: Jacob on October 14, 2023, 10:13:14 PMI don't think Nethanyahu is willing to make a permanent peace with the PA in the West Bank.
Neither do I.
From what I read in Haaretz, lots of people are pissed at Nethanyahu for prioritizing IDF deployment to protect settlers in the West Bank instead of protecting the northern and Gaza borders.
Which is somewhat odd, since they elected him because they wanted him to deploy the the IDF to expand the land "appropriation"
Heard on NPR that the US is trying to repatriate US Palestinians through the Raffa border crossing but Hamas won't let them leave.
Quote from: viper37 on October 14, 2023, 05:45:27 PMBy your example, if a Stasi agent had killed civilians in West Berlin, NATO should have flattened East Berlin.
A more apt analogy would be an armed incursion that had killed or kidnapped 5 to 10 thousand people.
And you bet your ass that would have resulted in WW3.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 13, 2023, 07:33:11 PMThey shouldn't have let Hamas take over, there was a Machiavellian element to that decision. Obviously they didn't want to keep occupying Gaza forever.
Although there's also the role of W Bush's administration in really forcing the PA and Israel to do elections which set the scene for the civil war in Gaza.
I don't think there was any appetite for that in Israel or the PA leadership without massive pressure from the US - and I think it was a bad decision.
QuoteA core issue is really that after 2001 Israel moved too far to the right to reasonably address Gaza or the West Bank. The Israeli right doesn't want a two state solution, they want to annex the West Bank and "Gaza to go away", walling Gaza off and leaving it to Hamas was like a quarantine mindset and I don't know if they ever had a good plan for it long term beyond just hoping it didn't cause too much trouble. Now it has caused too much trouble.
There ultimately has to be political force within Israel that is willing to pursue a diplomatic solution--which most likely includes lengthy occupations, Israeli concessions on certain key issues, a reverse of some of the settlement activity of the last 15 years in the West Bank, and a host of other things. Israel's body politic is so far on the other side of all that right now that it will take basically a wave of political change to ever get to somewhere like this.
I agree with this and I think it was Smotrich but it might have been another minister in Netanyahu's government who said the quiet part out loud when they said that the PLO was a burden for Israel and Hamas was an asset.
There was an element of divide and rule in the Israeli right's approach. In the West Bank they encouraged and protected settlers, while in Gaza they contained - but they could credibly say there is no Palestinian counterparty to deal with they're so riven with internal splits. Israel would deal directly with the PA but also hold indirect talks with Hamas about Gaza through intermediaries like Egypt - and allow funding to go to them (to an extent).
I think that was the wrong approch.
In terms Yi's question my instinct is build up the PA and the West Bank. Even if there's a split within Palestinian territories, there is one area that is governed by an authority that recognises and works with Israel. I think Israel could have worked really hard to build them up, to increase their legitimacy to unlock international development and to create a visible, attractive, peaceful alternative in order to undermine Hamas' support generally but particularly in Gaza. Instead we've seen the absolute humiliation of the PA or any authority Israel could work with in the West Bank in favour of settlements and things like the price tag attacks.
But as you say both that approach or just not doing the divide and rule strategy clashes with what the right and far-right of Israeli politics wants. It requires acknowledging that there are Palestinians, there is a Palestinian national identity and that's likely going to mean, in some way, a Palestinian state and identity which settlers and especially the extreme religious right aren't willing to concede.
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2023, 11:49:09 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 14, 2023, 08:16:06 AMReports Israel shelled one of the routes south that they had designated as safe, killing over 70. Mostly women and children.
I mean that seems really evil so I would probably want confirmation.
But...why not? Nothing seems beyond the pale in this conflict.
I have not seen any confirmations and the CBC stopped running that story - so I think its better to assume that did not happen.
But here is something that is certainly happening - as reported by the Globe and Mail.
And for those of you who heard the interview with Dr. Byers - this is the very thing he was talking about.
QuoteIsrael-Hamas war: Water running out in Gaza as UN warns of 'death sentence' to hospital patients
GEOFFREY YORK, MARK MACKINNON AND NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE
JERUSALEM, TEL AVIV AND BEIRUT
PUBLISHED 4 HOURS AGO
UPDATED 52 MINUTES AGO
Water supplies in Gaza are rapidly dwindling and thousands of hospital patients are in severe danger as Israel's nine-day blockade and bombing campaign triggers a growing humanitarian catastrophe for the 2.3 million people of the Palestinian territory.
Israel launched the air strikes last week after Hamas militants from the Gaza Strip killed more than 1,400 people in southern Israel, according to the Israeli government, and abducted more than 120.
The bombing has intensified in recent days, with more than 300 people killed on Saturday and Sunday morning, making it the deadliest 24-hour period since the attacks began and bringing the total death toll to more than 2,300, according to Gaza's health ministry.
The air strikes, coupled with Israel's continuing blockade of Gaza's supplies of food, water, fuel and medicine, have created a humanitarian disaster that has sparked growing international concern. "Gaza is one of the worst places on Earth to be right now," Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly told a media briefing on Saturday.
Nearly half of Gaza's people have been forced to flee from their homes. "Morgues are overflowing," United Nations emergency relief coordinator Martin Griffiths said in a weekend statement.
"Entire residential neighbourhoods have been razed to the ground. The humanitarian situation in Gaza, already critical, is fast becoming untenable."
The UN warned that Gazans will soon begin dying of severe dehydration if the blockade of water and fuel continues. Some are already forced to drink dirty water, increasing the risk of waterborne diseases, the UN said.
Israel has told the entire population of northern Gaza, about 1.1. million people, including hospital staff and patients, to move to the southern half of the enclave as it prepares for an expected ground invasion of the enclave. Some humanitarian workers have described this as "forcible transfer" – a war crime under international law – and most hospitals are defying the order.
The evacuation orders to 22 hospitals in northern Gaza are "a death sentence for the sick and injured," the World Health Organization said in a statement on the weekend.
More than 2,000 patients are at risk because the overcrowded hospitals in southern Gaza are already at maximum capacity and would be unable to cope with a dramatic rise in patients, it said.
"The lives of many critically ill and fragile patients hang in the balance: those in intensive care or who rely on life support; patients undergoing hemodialysis; newborns in incubators; women with complications of pregnancy, and others all face imminent deterioration of their condition or death if they are forced to move and are cut off from life-saving medical attention while being evacuated," the WHO said.
The Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) said it will not evacuate the hospitals where it operates in northern Gaza. "PRCS will continue saving lives and will not abandon those who are facing death threats," it said in a social media post on the weekend.
Hussam Abu Safiya, a doctor at the Kamal Adwan hospital in Beit Lahiya in northern Gaza, said his hospital is seeing 15 to 20 fatality cases every day. "We are working under stress, we are working under bombing," he told The Globe and Mail.
"The situation in our hospital is very bad, very bad. Any minute many people can come to our emergency room due to Israeli bombing. Most of the people are children and women, children of young age presenting to our ER with different injuries, mostly people with bad or critical general conditions. We have a shortage of medications. We can't help these people for many more days because we don't have the medical supplies."
By Sunday, hospital fuel supplies had dwindled to roughly two days, said Isam Hammad, the top importer of medical equipment to Gaza, who works closely with local medical facilities.
After that, "generators will stop and hospitals will go out of service," he said, although any problem with the generators could hasten that moment. Once generators are out, intensive care equipment "will work on internal batteries for a few hours, then it will stop," he said.
Medical supplies are dwindling, and the mass evacuation of patients is not possible, he told The Globe. "We are talking about five main hospitals full of critical cases. Will there be bed capacity in the south? Of course not."
South Gaza is no haven, he said. In fact, he has been told that people who initially left the north have subsequently returned home, "simply because there is no electricity and no water in all places north and south."
Meanwhile, bombing continues. "It is death everywhere," Mr. Hammad said.
Because of the lack of fuel, water cannot be pumped, and sewage systems will flood, the International Committee of the Red Cross warned on the weekend.
The lack of water supplies "has become a matter of life and death," with two million people at risk, the UN relief agency for Palestine refugees, known as UNRWA, said in a statement.
"Clean water is running out in the Gaza Strip, after its water plant and public water networks stopped working," it said. "People are now forced to use dirty water from wells."
Three water desalination plants, previously producing 21 million liters of drinking water per day, have halted operations, UNRWA said. Drinking water supply from Israel was cut last Monday, causing a severe shortage for more than 650,000 people.
"We need to truck fuel into Gaza now," said the agency's commissioner-general, Philippe Lazzarini. "Fuel is the only way for people to have safe drinking water. If not, people will start dying of severe dehydration, among them young children, the elderly and women."
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, in a statement on Saturday, said he was deeply concerned by the "dire humanitarian situation" in Gaza. "The rapid and unimpeded access of relief via a humanitarian corridor is essential to address the urgent needs of civilians in Gaza," he said.
About 150 Canadians are still trapped in Gaza after the cancellation of an earlier agreement to allow foreign nationals to depart from Gaza through the Rafah crossing to Egypt. They had hoped to leave on Saturday, but by Sunday afternoon there was still no signs of movement at the Rafah crossing.
My impression is that Gaza's decision to go to full active war with Israel by attacking civilians in a very controversial way was a poor one by conventional standards. How do you protect actors against making poor decisions?
Quote from: The Brain on October 15, 2023, 12:27:07 PMMy impression is that Gaza's decision to go to full active war with Israel by attacking civilians in a very controversial way was a poor one by conventional standards. How do you protect actors against making poor decisions?
As far as undedicated impressions go, that is a right up there.
If that story is true most gazans will be dead in 5 to 6 days. If they're not we'll know the story was false. :hmm:
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2023, 12:39:28 PMQuote from: The Brain on October 15, 2023, 12:27:07 PMMy impression is that Gaza's decision to go to full active war with Israel by attacking civilians in a very controversial way was a poor one by conventional standards. How do you protect actors against making poor decisions?
As far as undedicated impressions go, that is a right up there.
You think it wasn't a poor decision?
Every single protester saying "from the river to the sea" must be arrested, deported and banned forever from the civilized world. Fucking genocidal monsters declaring their intentions publicly across Europe. Every last one must go.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 15, 2023, 01:19:10 PMEvery single protester saying "from the river to the sea" must be arrested, deported and banned forever from the civilized world. Fucking genocidal monsters declaring their intentions publicly across Europe. Every last one must go.
If they have dual citizenship, their European passport must be revoked instantly and then they can be deported.
At least some German politicians agree with me: https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/politik-inland/csu-fordert-knallhart-kurs-sechs-monate-haft-fuer-israel-hasser-85742950.bild.html
Quote from: Legbiter on October 15, 2023, 12:42:00 PMIf that story is true most gazans will be dead in 5 to 6 days. If they're not we'll know the story was false. :hmm:
Presumably a bunch of them will drink dirty and untreated water from wells (like the story says), with the health consequences that entails.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 15, 2023, 01:20:29 PMQuote from: Hamilcar on October 15, 2023, 01:19:10 PMEvery single protester saying "from the river to the sea" must be arrested, deported and banned forever from the civilized world. Fucking genocidal monsters declaring their intentions publicly across Europe. Every last one must go.
If they have dual citizenship, their European passport must be revoked instantly and then they can be deported.
At least some German politicians agree with me: https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/politik-inland/csu-fordert-knallhart-kurs-sechs-monate-haft-fuer-israel-hasser-85742950.bild.html
Revoking citizenship for speech?
Quote from: Jacob on October 15, 2023, 01:26:51 PMQuote from: Hamilcar on October 15, 2023, 01:20:29 PMQuote from: Hamilcar on October 15, 2023, 01:19:10 PMEvery single protester saying "from the river to the sea" must be arrested, deported and banned forever from the civilized world. Fucking genocidal monsters declaring their intentions publicly across Europe. Every last one must go.
If they have dual citizenship, their European passport must be revoked instantly and then they can be deported.
At least some German politicians agree with me: https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/politik-inland/csu-fordert-knallhart-kurs-sechs-monate-haft-fuer-israel-hasser-85742950.bild.html
Revoking citizenship for speech?
Revoke citizenship for advocating genocide, absolutely. You have proven that you don't share the fundamental values of your adopted home. You lied when you were naturalized. Same principle as the Nazis who lied on their immigration forms in the US and Canada.
What of those born there?
Quote from: HVC on October 15, 2023, 01:32:17 PMWhat of those born there?
Jail. Straight to jail. Seem my link above, German conservative proposes 6 month jail sentence.
Quote from: HamilcarRevoke citizenship for advocating genocide, absolutely. You have proven that you don't share the fundamental values of your adopted home. You lied when you were naturalized. Same principle as the Nazis who lied on their immigration forms in the US and Canada.
1. So this doesn't apply to people who were born in the country and have citizenship? If I said such a thing I'd still keep my Danish citizenship, and you'd still keep your Swiss?
2. One difference is that the US citizenship/ visa applications explicitly asks about membership and revocation happens as a result of lying. That is different than revoking citizenship for utterances you disapprove of, that were not mentioned during the application process.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 15, 2023, 01:34:21 PMQuote from: HVC on October 15, 2023, 01:32:17 PMWhat of those born there?
Jail. Straight to jail. Seem my link above, German conservative proposes 6 month jail sentence.
And those cheering on Palestinian deaths, deportation and jail for them too?
Quote from: Jacob on October 15, 2023, 01:35:23 PMQuote from: HamilcarRevoke citizenship for advocating genocide, absolutely. You have proven that you don't share the fundamental values of your adopted home. You lied when you were naturalized. Same principle as the Nazis who lied on their immigration forms in the US and Canada.
1. So this doesn't apply to people who were born in the country and have citizenship? If I said such a thing I'd still keep my Danish citizenship, and you'd still keep your Swiss?
2. One difference is that the US citizenship/ visa applications explicitly asks about membership and revocation happens as a result of lying. That is different than revoking citizenship for utterances you disapprove of, that were not mentioned during the application process.
1. If the Western citizenship is the only thing you have then all that's left is punishment.
2. Most western countries require you to pledge to respect the laws and values of their society when you naturalize. By advocating genocide you demonstrate that you lied during your pledge.
Quote from: Tamas on October 14, 2023, 06:36:38 PMSo if get it right France is having to send 7000 soldiers to patrol cities because there has been not only that stabbing in that school but threats against the Louvre as well.
Bomb threats against the Louvre and the Versailles Castle are probably linked to the war, yes.
QuoteBecause of a bloody middle east crisis is making radical Muslims there uppity. Ludicrous and kind of scary.
The stabbing of a teacher is the second by a radicalised North Caucasian "refugee" an Ingushetian (bordering Chechnya), North Caucasian radical islamist, so not necessarily linked to the Hamas-Israel think of Samuel Paty. It's islamism at work. He shouted Allahu akbar and wanted to kill a teacher.
More of a mismanaged immigration issue though, even as per Le Monde:
QuoteYou can share an article by clicking on the share icons at the top right of it.
The total or partial reproduction of an article, without the prior written authorization of Le Monde, is strictly forbidden.
For more information, see our Terms and Conditions.
For all authorization requests, contact [email protected].
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/10/14/who-is-mohammed-m-the-man-who-carried-out-a-knife-attack-at-a-school-in-arras_6171906_7.html
Mohammed M. was born in Ingushetia in 2003, a Russian province next to Chechnya, and arrived in France in 2008 with his brothers and parents. The Salafist family first settled in Brittany, in the village of La-Guerche-de-Bretagne, south of Rennes. The children went to school, and they applied for asylum. However, the local prefecture refused to grant the father, Yacoub M., political refugee status.
According to news articles and press releases at the time, on February 18, 2014, border police officers turned up at the hostel where they were staying, questioned them and took them to the Paris Charles-de-Gaulle airport to be sent back to Russia. However, this attempted deportation generated an outcry from local organizations defending undocumented migrants. Activists even briefly occupied the Rennes school inspectorate. In extremis, while on the tarmac waiting to take off, the family was taken off the return flight and released from detention. The father fled to Belgium, where he was arrested and put on a plane to Russia in 2018.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/10/14/who-is-mohammed-m-the-man-who-carried-out-a-knife-attack-at-a-school-in-arras_6171906_7.html (https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/10/14/who-is-mohammed-m-the-man-who-carried-out-a-knife-attack-at-a-school-in-arras_6171906_7.html)
As for trouble in Palestine/Israel causing trouble over here, it's hardly news, not the first time, nor the last one.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 15, 2023, 01:37:13 PM2. Most western countries require you to pledge to respect the laws and values of their society when you naturalize. By advocating genocide you demonstrate that you lied during your pledge.
Call for mass persecution of citizenry through new laws also seems against western values, to me, off to jail for you too?
Quote from: Jacob on October 15, 2023, 01:25:59 PMQuote from: Legbiter on October 15, 2023, 12:42:00 PMIf that story is true most gazans will be dead in 5 to 6 days. If they're not we'll know the story was false. :hmm:
Presumably a bunch of them will drink dirty and untreated water from wells (like the story says), with the health consequences that entails.
If it's not boiled they're dead. We'll know in a few days.
Senator Graham, on meet the press, said this morning that Israel has agreed to turn the water back on.
Abbas has said that Hamas' actions do not represent Palestinians.
Quote from: HVC on October 15, 2023, 01:41:23 PMCall for mass persecution of citizenry through new laws also seems against western values, to me, off to jail for you too?
You, straight to jail. Undermining national morale.
I think jailing people for this sort of speech might go a little to far.
Gorshon Baskin, the last Israeli to successfully negotiate a prisoner/hostage swap with Hamas has said in an interview, he sees a small chance of a hostage exchange, but that it would only involve women, children, ill and old Israeli hostages in return for the 45 Palestinian women and 170 minors in Israeli prisons.
But he saw no likelihood of the men being released in such an exchange and acknowledged the radically different environment that now exists in the region.
The nature of his communications with Hamas were characterised as informal, but established.
So I guess there's a very small chance we'll have some good news, before the Israeli land assault begins
Qatar and a few other bad actors in the region have apparently been pressuring Hamas to release women / elderly / children, I think some of Hamas' savvier backers understand the PR value of holding those hostages is massively negative, to no strategic / tactical benefit of note.
Whether we will actually see any of them released is of course hard to know, I wouldn't feel great about the odds.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 14, 2023, 09:52:15 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 14, 2023, 08:14:04 PMBy your example, if a Stasi agent had killed civilians in West Berlin, NATO should have flattened East Berlin.
Are we talking about the same thing? I suggested a three state solution. Make permanent peace with the PA in the West Bank. Continue a policy of containment with Gaza and Hamas.
It ain't a viable solution so far as it's the same nation. You can't create two Palestinian state with two different status for its citizens.
Besides, Israel would never accept to surrender territory in the West Bank. It wasn't acceptable in 1993 nor in 2000, it won't be in 2023 when there's almost nothing left for Palestinians. And Palestinians would never accept a state with isolated pockets here and there. Who would, really? It's like the 13 colonies sitting at a table with England in 1778 and England partitioning all the colonies to give pieces of the territory to the newly formed US and keep the rest as colonies.
Surrendering territory in Gaza by Sharon created a trauma for the right wing parties that they would never want to repeat, and no liberal party can govern right now without the help of a right wing secular or religious party.
Quote from: Iormlund on October 15, 2023, 10:30:26 AMQuote from: viper37 on October 14, 2023, 05:45:27 PMBy your example, if a Stasi agent had killed civilians in West Berlin, NATO should have flattened East Berlin.
A more apt analogy would be an armed incursion that had killed or kidnapped 5 to 10 thousand people.
And you bet your ass that would have resulted in WW3.
There were 700 people killed in one day, and they died because Netanyahu considered them expendable, compared to the right wing settlers who elected him. The Egyptian government warned the Israeli government of something big happening and the answer was that the IDF was otherwise engaged in the West Bank. The CIA also warned the Israelis about the Hamas preparing something big and that was not important enough. The Shin Bet warned the Netanyahu govt of its policies creating resentment and increasing the risk of a terrorist attack from the Hamas but
they chose to dismmiss it (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-08-06/ty-article/.premium/the-leftist-agenda-has-infiltrated-the-shin-bet-israeli-ministers-slam-security-chief/00000189-ca69-d9f3-a1cd-fffbd04a0000).
It is not the first time either they were warned about their idiotic policies.
Shin bet chief warns on dangers of PA collapse resulting in violence (https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-shin-bet-chief-warns-netanyahu-on-dangers-of-pa-collapse-resulting-violence/)
Warning of clear and immediate danger ex Shin Bet agents urge overhaul be shelved (https://www.timesofisrael.com/warning-of-clear-and-immediate-danger-ex-shin-bet-agents-urge-overhaul-be-shelved/)
For your analogy to be correct, it would have meant for all NATO troops to be absent from West Berlin and for the BND to ignore all prior intelligence given by other agencies warning of an impending attack.
Quote from: viper37 on October 15, 2023, 07:25:05 PMIt ain't a viable solution so far as it's the same nation. You can't create two Palestinian state with two different status for its citizens.
Koreans have two states. Chinese have two states. The Irish have two states. Germans used to have two states. Before that they had dozens. So did Italians.
Germans still have 2 States, maybe even 2.5 if you count Switzerland as a partial.
Arabs have like a dozen. What's two more?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 14, 2023, 10:08:41 PMIs this a language problem? You keep saying I say something that I didn't say. I didn't say that they deserved it, it's something that happened because of a war. If the war had gone another way there would have been a second holocaust. Millions of Germans were displaced a few years earlier and nobody is to bent out of shape about that. Hell, 14 million people were displace with the creation of India and Pakistan. It was a rough time.
Do you think Israel has the right to exist? Does it have the right to defend itself?
I'm not aware of any Germans living in temporary refugee camps since 1945 and being disallowed to return to Germany. Can you enlighten me on this part of history?
As for the second Holocaust, it is doubtful. Given that the only massacre to occur in the war were perpetrated by Jews against Arab civilians, which prompted other Arabs to flee, it's hard to understand this fear. The war begun after Jewish militants assassinated Palestinians, and Palestinians reciprocated in killing Jewish civilians. Not the first time, nor the last it would happen in this territory.
Jews might have been expelled from Palestine though. But like you said, it's ok for the victors to displace people they don't like, so no big deal here. Who cares about a couple million refugees? I'm sure Europe, US and Canada would have found some room for them at the time. :)
And I'd like to also remind you that neither side agreed with the UN partition plan. Both the Jews of the British Mandate and the Arab nations rejected it. You can pin the blame on the Arabs as much as you want, but both are guilty here.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 15, 2023, 07:44:48 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 15, 2023, 07:25:05 PMIt ain't a viable solution so far as it's the same nation. You can't create two Palestinian state with two different status for its citizens.
Koreans have two states. Chinese have two states. The Irish have two states. Germans used to have two states. Before that they had dozens. So did Italians.
Austria and Germany evolved independently, mostly because of different religion between the two regions.
As for Ireland, I don't think it's a model to be emulated given the level of violence there has been since 1917.
Even if there were two states, there would need to be guarantees for the people of Gaza to be able to travel outside of the territory, to eventually reach the West Bank. And you have not addressed the right of return, or any compensation for the refugees. Another point on which Israel is unwilling to cede anything.
Gaza being contained is exactly the situation since 2005. It did not prevent the last attack, nor any of the rocket attacks since then. Hamas will never surrender and it will never accept any political solution. Israel has never shown any inclination to support opponents of the Hamas or to help Palestinians protesting against the Hamas and the current government has done everything in its power to sideline the PA.
If we go back to Germany, could you create a country out of Cologne, Stuttgart, Essen, Leipzig and leave the rest colonized by France and the USSR? With all of Germans deported to these cities? Would that have been viable after WWII?
Quote from: viper37 on October 15, 2023, 08:38:18 PMAustria and Germany evolved independently, mostly because of different religion between the two regions.
As for Ireland, I don't think it's a model to be emulated given the level of violence there has been since 1917.
Even if there were two states, there would need to be guarantees for the people of Gaza to be able to travel outside of the territory, to eventually reach the West Bank. And you have not addressed the right of return, or any compensation for the refugees. Another point on which Israel is unwilling to cede anything.
Gaza being contained is exactly the situation since 2005. It did not prevent the last attack, nor any of the rocket attacks since then. Hamas will never surrender and it will never accept any political solution. Israel has never shown any inclination to support opponents of the Hamas or to help Palestinians protesting against the Hamas and the current government has done everything in its power to sideline the PA.
If we go back to Germany, could you create a country out of Cologne, Stuttgart, Essen, Leipzig and leave the rest colonized by France and the USSR? With all of Germans deported to these cities? Would that have been viable after WWII?
Nor does it address water rights, or transhipment of goods between Gaza and the WB, or a host of other issues.
My idea only addresses one issue: the moral absurdity of making peace with people who have no interest in peace. So it takes those people out of the equation. The inhabitants of the WB should not pay for the sins of Gaza.
Ontario was considered has a possible destination for what became the Darfur declaration.
So apparently - motivated by the current conflict - a 71-year old American used a knife to attack a 32-year old woman and a 6-year old boy in Chicago, wounding the woman and killing the boy
Quote from: viper37 on October 15, 2023, 08:29:41 PMI'm not aware of any Germans living in temporary refugee camps since 1945 and being disallowed to return to Germany. Can you enlighten me on this part of history?
The Germans were forced to flee from their homes to Germany. The Allied powers didn't force them to live in refugee camps indefinitely, unlike the Arabs who had no interest in resettling refugees. I don't know how long they did live in refugee camps though. From 1945-1989 they were prevented from going back to their homes. After that I don't think they cared much.
QuoteAs for the second Holocaust, it is doubtful. Given that the only massacre to occur in the war were perpetrated by Jews against Arab civilians, which prompted other Arabs to flee, it's hard to understand this fear. The war begun after Jewish militants assassinated Palestinians, and Palestinians reciprocated in killing Jewish civilians. Not the first time, nor the last it would happen in this territory.
The Palestinians massacred many Jews in 20's and 30's. The anti-Jewish riots took place all across the Arab world killing many.
An example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haifa_Oil_Refinery_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_anti-Jewish_riots_in_Tripolitania
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre
They openly spoke of pushing the Jews into the sea and getting rid of the "Zionist plague".
QuoteJews might have been expelled from Palestine though. But like you said, it's ok for the victors to displace people they don't like, so no big deal here. Who cares about a couple million refugees? I'm sure Europe, US and Canada would have found some room for them at the time. :)
I didn't say that. You are still making things up.
QuoteAnd I'd like to also remind you that neither side agreed with the UN partition plan. Both the Jews of the British Mandate and the Arab nations rejected it. You can pin the blame on the Arabs as much as you want, but both are guilty here.
You ignorant rube, the Jews accepted the plan. There was some dissent but there was general acceptance.
You didn't answer my question: Does Israel have a right to exist? Does it have a right to defend itself?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kufj_iN41Gc
Hama dude proposes swapping Palestinian Americans for Hamas members in prison in the US and Israel.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/aoOW0msPdOo
Israel dropping leaflets urging evacuation.
Quote from: Jacob on October 15, 2023, 09:45:40 PMSo apparently - motivated by the current conflict - a 71-year old American used a knife to attack a 32-year old woman and a 6-year old boy in Chicago, wounding the woman and killing the boy
:(
Any of the involved people Palestinians or Israelis?
Quote from: viper37 on October 15, 2023, 07:25:05 PMWho would, really?
I would. I would in a second. And for the exact same reason the Irish accepted the partition even though it led to civil war, because it was the best they could be expected to get. I would basically agree to anything that got whatever crumbs the Palestinian people could get. Because the situation has been basically lost since the 1970s. And once I had a few bits of territory, that is a bases to make something better happen in the future.
Refusing a deal because it is bad when no better options are likely to ever emerge is borderline criminal. You need to act in the best interests of your people, not in pursuit of some fantastical objective that is not practically possible.
QuoteIt's like the 13 colonies sitting at a table with England in 1778 and England partitioning all the colonies to give pieces of the territory to the newly formed US and keep the rest as colonies.
I mean we had an alliance with France in 1778. And I don't think our strategic positions were even comparable.
It is more like the Confederacy sitting at the table in 1865 and refusing any terms and determining to fight on forever and then were occupied by the Federal Army for 60 years and refused to even consider allowing some of the Confederacy to get independence.
QuoteAs for Ireland, I don't think it's a model to be emulated given the level of violence there has been since 1917.
I think Ireland came out of that situation pretty well by accepting a shitty deal. Would a victorious Ireland be able to get a better deal for a united Ireland after their conquest of London? Sure. Would there have been no violence in Ireland after such a victory? Doubtful. But of course this is fantasy territory. Such a victory was not likely.
Granted it was more likely than a Palestinian one in the 21st Century.
Quote from: The Brain on October 15, 2023, 12:42:08 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2023, 12:39:28 PMQuote from: The Brain on October 15, 2023, 12:27:07 PMMy impression is that Gaza's decision to go to full active war with Israel by attacking civilians in a very controversial way was a poor one by conventional standards. How do you protect actors against making poor decisions?
As far as undedicated impressions go, that is a right up there.
You think it wasn't a poor decision?
I think you have a poor understanding of the situation when you say that Gaza attacked Israel. Hamas attacked Israel.
Hamas is an illegal terrorist organization, not a nation and not Gaza.
And for those of you who like to think that you share the majority opinion, you might want to listen to the American president who also says that the enemy is Hamas, not the civilians in Gaza.
Quote from: HVC on October 15, 2023, 01:41:23 PMQuote from: Hamilcar on October 15, 2023, 01:37:13 PM2. Most western countries require you to pledge to respect the laws and values of their society when you naturalize. By advocating genocide you demonstrate that you lied during your pledge.
Call for mass persecution of citizenry through new laws also seems against western values, to me, off to jail for you too?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 15, 2023, 07:44:48 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 15, 2023, 07:25:05 PMIt ain't a viable solution so far as it's the same nation. You can't create two Palestinian state with two different status for its citizens.
Koreans have two states. Chinese have two states. The Irish have two states. Germans used to have two states. Before that they had dozens. So did Italians.
All your examples are not or were not the most viable or stable entities now are they?
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 15, 2023, 02:40:22 PMSenator Graham, on meet the press, said this morning that Israel has agreed to turn the water back on.
Let's hope that's true.
QuoteIn the UK, the prime minister's official spokesperson said it was "abhorrent" that pro-Palestinian protesters reportedly displayed images of Hamas attackers during demonstrations.
It comes after the Metropolitan police appealed for information about two women who had pictures of paragliders taped to the back of their jackets at protests in London at the weekend.
Rishi Sunak's spokesperson told reporters: "It is abhorrent. It is hard to conceive of a situation where people would want to show support for individuals that committed a terrorist attack which saw children, babies slaughtered. It is hard to put into words."
PA Media reports that the prime ministers spokesperson was also critical of the BBC, which has been accused of not using the description "terrorists" for Hamas in news broadcasts in the UK. The spokesperson, who traditionally in UK politics speaks on the record but is not named, said:
The legal position is that Hamas is a proscribed terrorist group – the term terrorist is an accurate legal description. The BBC has described other attacks as terrorism – 9/11, 7/7, the Bataclan. To put it into context, the attack we witnessed in Israel was the third deadliest terror attack in the world since 1970. So there is no restriction on the BBC using that term.
God knows what those idiots are playing at.
Even if they are pro-Hamas surely they should realise its in Hamas' favour too to concentrate on the Palestinian civilians bound to suffer.
All they're doing there is damaging the pro-Palestinian side as a whole.
Then again maybe that's the 4D chess they're playing? Damage sympathy for Palestinians in the west and really draw out the rabid support Israel no matter what aspects to further bring together Islamicists, tankies, etc...?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 16, 2023, 07:06:24 AMQuote from: The Brain on October 15, 2023, 12:42:08 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2023, 12:39:28 PMQuote from: The Brain on October 15, 2023, 12:27:07 PMMy impression is that Gaza's decision to go to full active war with Israel by attacking civilians in a very controversial way was a poor one by conventional standards. How do you protect actors against making poor decisions?
As far as undedicated impressions go, that is a right up there.
You think it wasn't a poor decision?
I think you have a poor understanding of the situation when you say that Gaza attacked Israel. Hamas attacked Israel.
Hamas is an illegal terrorist organization, not a nation and not Gaza.
And for those of you who like to think that you share the majority opinion, you might want to listen to the American president who also says that the enemy is Hamas, not the civilians in Gaza.
My impression is that Hamas have been the rulers of Gaza for some years. You're saying they haven't? And why would civilians be enemies? I don't follow.
Quote from: The Brain on October 16, 2023, 07:46:32 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 16, 2023, 07:06:24 AMQuote from: The Brain on October 15, 2023, 12:42:08 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2023, 12:39:28 PMQuote from: The Brain on October 15, 2023, 12:27:07 PMMy impression is that Gaza's decision to go to full active war with Israel by attacking civilians in a very controversial way was a poor one by conventional standards. How do you protect actors against making poor decisions?
As far as undedicated impressions go, that is a right up there.
You think it wasn't a poor decision?
I think you have a poor understanding of the situation when you say that Gaza attacked Israel. Hamas attacked Israel.
Hamas is an illegal terrorist organization, not a nation and not Gaza.
And for those of you who like to think that you share the majority opinion, you might want to listen to the American president who also says that the enemy is Hamas, not the civilians in Gaza.
My impression is that Hamas have been the rulers of Gaza for some years. You're saying they haven't? And why would civilians be enemies? I don't follow.
Maybe we should stop talking about your impressions. I'd rather talk about reality.
Please tell me what part of what I said was factually incorrect.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 16, 2023, 08:28:59 AMMaybe we should stop talking about your impressions. I'd rather talk about reality.
Please tell me what part of what I said was factually incorrect.
The reality is that Gaza freely and fairly elected Hamas their leaders in 2006. Granted it was a long time ago, and I would hope that Gazans would vote differently today, but we cannot pretend like there is zero evidence the Gazans support Hamas and their aims.
So it seems Israel is using practical anti air lasers.
Star wars is here?
Yeah although in referencing that, it's worth noting that the median age in Gaza is 18 - 65% of the population are under 25.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 16, 2023, 09:01:20 AMYeah although in referencing that, it's worth noting that the median age in Gaza is 18 - 65% of the population are under 25.
Close to half under 18 and 200,000 under 5 I heard. Which is amazing and really shows how much shitty living conditions link to a high birth rate.
Quote from: Valmy on October 16, 2023, 08:53:25 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 16, 2023, 08:28:59 AMMaybe we should stop talking about your impressions. I'd rather talk about reality.
Please tell me what part of what I said was factually incorrect.
The reality is that Gaza freely and fairly elected Hamas their leaders in 2006. Granted it was a long time ago, and I would hope that Gazans would vote differently today, but we cannot pretend like there is zero evidence the Gazans support Hamas and their aims.
We had that discussion a bit back. Most measurements seem to point for a large support for Hamas in Gaza and amongst Palestinians in general. Not overwhelmingly large, but large. Most points to Hamas being elected again if there would be a vote on it and also them being elected in the West Bank. At least before the latest war, things might have changed.
That's not to equate Hamas with Palestinians in general, but it seems like the do need a fair bit of dehamasification after the war.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 16, 2023, 09:01:20 AMYeah although in referencing that, it's worth noting that the median age in Gaza is 18 - 65% of the population are under 25.
Right and I mentioned this before. A huge percentage of Gaza are just kids who simply have had the misfortune of being born in a shitty situation.
I was just saying we cannot pretend there is no evidence that Hamas doesn't represent the opinions of Gazans. They did 17 years ago and while I hope they do not currently that is just a fact.
Quote from: The Brain on October 16, 2023, 01:11:02 AMQuote from: Jacob on October 15, 2023, 09:45:40 PMSo apparently - motivated by the current conflict - a 71-year old American used a knife to attack a 32-year old woman and a 6-year old boy in Chicago, wounding the woman and killing the boy
:(
Any of the involved people Palestinians or Israelis?
Yeah the victims are Palestinian-American. Not sure about the attacker, the news I saw didn't cover it.
I believe the attacker was their landlord too.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 16, 2023, 08:28:59 AMQuote from: The Brain on October 16, 2023, 07:46:32 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 16, 2023, 07:06:24 AMQuote from: The Brain on October 15, 2023, 12:42:08 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 15, 2023, 12:39:28 PMQuote from: The Brain on October 15, 2023, 12:27:07 PMMy impression is that Gaza's decision to go to full active war with Israel by attacking civilians in a very controversial way was a poor one by conventional standards. How do you protect actors against making poor decisions?
As far as undedicated impressions go, that is a right up there.
You think it wasn't a poor decision?
I think you have a poor understanding of the situation when you say that Gaza attacked Israel. Hamas attacked Israel.
Hamas is an illegal terrorist organization, not a nation and not Gaza.
And for those of you who like to think that you share the majority opinion, you might want to listen to the American president who also says that the enemy is Hamas, not the civilians in Gaza.
My impression is that Hamas have been the rulers of Gaza for some years. You're saying they haven't? And why would civilians be enemies? I don't follow.
Maybe we should stop talking about your impressions. I'd rather talk about reality.
Please tell me what part of what I said was factually incorrect.
I didn't ask you about my impressions. But I doubt we'll get much further.
What would Palestinians not supporting Hamas look like?
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 16, 2023, 12:29:38 PMWhat would Palestinians not supporting Hamas look like?
I have never been to Palestine so I couldn't tell you, which is why I referred to the 2006 election.
Quote from: Jacob on October 16, 2023, 11:03:09 AMYeah the victims are Palestinian-American. Not sure about the attacker, the news I saw didn't cover it.
Goddamnit. We have so many crazy psychos in this country.
Quote from: Valmy on October 16, 2023, 03:14:45 PMQuote from: Jacob on October 16, 2023, 11:03:09 AMYeah the victims are Palestinian-American. Not sure about the attacker, the news I saw didn't cover it.
Goddamnit. We have so many crazy psychos in this country.
Luck of the odds. You have a lot of people.
Quote from: Valmy on October 16, 2023, 01:18:08 AMQuote from: viper37 on October 15, 2023, 07:25:05 PMWho would, really?
I would. I would in a second. And for the exact same reason the Irish accepted the partition even though it led to civil war, because it was the best they could be expected to get. I would basically agree to anything that got whatever crumbs the Palestinian people could get. Because the situation has been basically lost since the 1970s. And once I had a few bits of territory, that is a bases to make something better happen in the future.
And I would never agree to what was proposed in the Camp David accord as it wasn't a viable territory. And there was no guarantee Israel wouldn't just invade Palestine in a few years under any pretext to start a new war and deport Palestinians again. Between 1993 and 2000, Israel kept colonizing the West Bank and part of Gaza. Then it withdrew from Gaza so it could further build in the West Bank.
And the Palestinian side kept launching rockets and launching terror attacks against Israel. And Israel never for once envisioned to stop colonization of the territories because it sees this lands as belonging to them.
A peace treaty would not change that if it does not include a clear and defined border that is internationally recognized and supported by major powers.
I don't think Israel ever negotiated in good faith. And that's why Sharon visited Temple Mount during the 2000 Camp David negotiations, to make sure the Israeli position was made clear, that no ground would ever be ceded. And that's the reason he won his elections, because a majority of Israelis did not want peace at the price of land. No matter what concession the Palestinians would have made, Israel would have found a pretext to renege on the deal and not transfer sovereignty on the promise territory, keep building colonies and/or invade the remaining parts of Palestine after some clash with the Palestinians.
You can't have peace unless both sides want it, and the majority position in Israel is that Transjordan is a vital part of the territory, Palestinian or no Palestinian. Now, Gaza has become a clear and present danger and it must cleansed of Palestinians quickly to avoid a repeat of the events of October 7th.
The Israeli govt is not even hiding its game anymore, they can't be clearer than that: There is no distinction between a Hamas supporter and a Palestinian civilian. It's their own fault if they didn't overthrew the Hamas before, dixit the President. No politician from any party even bothered to contradict him.
Anyway. Back to the topic at hand, by your logic, Ukraine should have surrendered to Russia long ago. Avoiding all these unnecessary deaths. Give Russia what they wanted: Crimea and the Eastern part of the country. Give them territory for peace, the best deal they could get at the time.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 15, 2023, 08:57:22 PMMy idea only addresses one issue: the moral absurdity of making peace with people who have no interest in peace. So it takes those people out of the equation. The inhabitants of the WB should not pay for the sins of Gaza.
Israel has no interest in peace: it is winning the war. There's about 11% left of what was the West Bank. Gaza was to be left for later, but now he time table has accelerated drastically. It will be made irrelevant by January/February of next year.
How Hamas's carefully planned Israel attack devolved into a chaotic rampage (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/16/hamas-attack-israel/)
Good text from the WaPo. Hamas was surprised by its own attack.
Quote from: viper37 on October 16, 2023, 05:06:28 PMIsrael has no interest in peace: it is winning the war. There's about 11% left of what was the West Bank. Gaza was to be left for later, but now he time table has accelerated drastically. It will be made irrelevant by January/February of next year.
I get the impression you think I am making a prediction about how peace will be achieved in the region. I am not. I am conducting a thought experiment on what sort of arrangement
I would find acceptable and through which a theoretical Israeli government that was interested in gaining my approval would act.
Quote from: viper37 on October 16, 2023, 04:41:08 PMAnd I would never agree to what was proposed in the Camp David accord as it wasn't a viable territory.
Dude, Israel is barely a viable territory. I am not sure what you would expect as a defeated and occupied country without a military totally at the mercy of your enemy.
Quote from: viper37 on October 16, 2023, 04:41:08 PMAnd there was no guarantee Israel wouldn't just invade Palestine in a few years under any pretext to start a new war and deport Palestinians again. Between 1993 and 2000, Israel kept colonizing the West Bank and part of Gaza. Then it withdrew from Gaza so it could further build in the West Bank.
Sure. But there was no deal. Palestine did not get a deal to even partially end the occupation. That was the cost of intransigence.
QuoteAnd the Palestinian side kept launching rockets and launching terror attacks against Israel. And Israel never for once envisioned to stop colonization of the territories because it sees this lands as belonging to them.
Indeed. Both sides are dominated by insane nationalists dreaming of total victory. Neither can be trusted. I am pleased that you agree that nationalists are dangerous assholes after all this time :P
QuoteA peace treaty would not change that if it does not include a clear and defined border that is internationally recognized and supported by major powers.
Well obviously that is the goal. But you have to start someplace. And if you are serious about eventually reaching a peaceful solution you will take whatever crumbs you can get, especially in a situation as shitty as Palestine's.
QuoteI don't think Israel ever negotiated in good faith. And that's why Sharon visited Temple Mount during the 2000 Camp David negotiations, to make sure the Israeli position was made clear, that no ground would ever be ceded. And that's the reason he won his elections, because a majority of Israelis did not want peace at the price of land. No matter what concession the Palestinians would have made, Israel would have found a pretext to renege on the deal and not transfer sovereignty on the promise territory, keep building colonies and/or invade the remaining parts of Palestine after some clash with the Palestinians.
You can't have peace unless both sides want it, and the majority position in Israel is that Transjordan is a vital part of the territory, Palestinian or no Palestinian. Now, Gaza has become a clear and present danger and it must cleansed of Palestinians quickly to avoid a repeat of the events of October 7th.
The Israeli govt is not even hiding its game anymore, they can't be clearer than that: There is no distinction between a Hamas supporter and a Palestinian civilian. It's their own fault if they didn't overthrew the Hamas before, dixit the President. No politician from any party even bothered to contradict him.
I basically agree. I don't know if neither side was negotiating in bad faith all of the time but I am pretty certain neither was negotiating in good faith at the same time. But, especially with regards to the Israeli Nationalist Right and Hamas, I think fundamentally it was about using the negotiations to secure some kind of advantage.
QuoteAnyway. Back to the topic at hand, by your logic, Ukraine should have surrendered to Russia long ago.
They did surrender to Russia long ago. Several times. They surrendered when they had no chance of victory.
QuoteAvoiding all these unnecessary deaths. Give Russia what they wanted: Crimea and the Eastern part of the country. Give them territory for peace, the best deal they could get at the time.
If Ukraine lost and was militarily occupied I think they would have to do that, yes.
I don't think that currently giving Russia what they want is the best deal they can get at the time. That is an insane comparison that makes no sense. Ukraine has a military that is still in the field and still controls most of its territory and has driven Russia back from its major cities. None of this even begins to approximate the current situation for Palestine so how my logic extends to current day Ukraine I have no idea.
Article about Israeli Apache helicopter pilots on the day of the attack.
QuoteHamas terrorists deliberately played a cunning game with the helicopter pilots and special forces operatives. briefings revealed that the terrorists were advised to advance cautiously into the settlements and military outposts, to walk and not run, in order to appear like they were Israeli. This deception tactic persisted for some time until the Apache pilots realized that all constraints should be disregarded.
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hkanmp5w6#autoplay (https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hkanmp5w6#autoplay)
Quote from: Valmy on October 16, 2023, 07:06:55 PMIndeed. Both sides are dominated by insane nationalists dreaming of total victory. Neither can be trusted. I am pleased that you agree that nationalists are dangerous assholes after all this time :P
There'd be much less problems if they were all atheists. Atheists have no chosen lands and holy cities. :P
Quote from: viper37 on October 16, 2023, 08:37:00 PMQuote from: Valmy on October 16, 2023, 07:06:55 PMIndeed. Both sides are dominated by insane nationalists dreaming of total victory. Neither can be trusted. I am pleased that you agree that nationalists are dangerous assholes after all this time :P
There'd be much less problems if they were all atheists. Atheists have no chosen lands and holy cities. :P
We find other things to fight about.
ORF quotes Israeli military spokesperson saying they evacuated 500,000 people from Southern Israel for the time being.
Oh, and:
QuoteHugo Bachega
BBC Middle East correspondent, Lebanon
In recent days, Iran has repeatedly talked about the risk of an escalation in the Israel-Hamas war. But the comments by the country's foreign minister are the strongest warning yet that the fighting might spread, making it into a regional conflict.
Hossein Amirabdollahian said the "resistance front" could carry out a "pre-emptive action" in the coming hours" - if Israel's "war crimes against Palestinians" in Gaza did not stop.
The "resistance front" is an alliance of forces in the region that includes Hezbollah, the powerful Lebanese group backed by Iran.
In the past week, Hezbollah and the Israeli military have exchanged fire along the Lebanese-Israeli border, raising fears that this could become another frontin the war.
Hezbollah has a vast arsenal of weapons, with missiles capable of striking deep into Israeli territory, as well as tens of thousands of well-trained, battle-hardened fighters.
The "resistance front" also includes groups Iran supports in Syria - which borders Israel - and Iraq.
Western countries have warned Tehran against escalating the situation and, so far, the cross-border violence has been contained. But some believe this could change if Israel goes ahead with a ground offensive into Gaza, and militants here decide they must respond.
Might be an opportune moment for Lebanon to get rid of hezbollah, assuming it'll be more of a fustercluck anyway given those religious fanatics in the various terrorist groups and iran
Quote from: viper37 on October 16, 2023, 08:37:00 PMQuote from: Valmy on October 16, 2023, 07:06:55 PMIndeed. Both sides are dominated by insane nationalists dreaming of total victory. Neither can be trusted. I am pleased that you agree that nationalists are dangerous assholes after all this time :P
There'd be much less problems if they were all atheists. Atheists have no chosen lands and holy cities. :P
They just have a pathological hate of everyone elses.
Quote from: Josquius on October 17, 2023, 03:14:36 AMQuote from: viper37 on October 16, 2023, 08:37:00 PMThere'd be much less problems if they were all atheists. Atheists have no chosen lands and holy cities. :P
They just have a pathological hate of everyone elses.
We do?
I'd love to visit Jerusalem or Kyoto.
One of the criticism levelled by the "but it is an occupation!" crowd is European leaders being too pro-Israel, SHOCKINGLY taking the attacked side in a case of mass murder and kidnapping. Well that basic logic aside it has just sunk in that many of the victims and the kidnapped people are citizens of these various countries. Like one of the trophy slaves hostages showcased in a recent Hamas video was a young French-Israeli girl. So I really don't know how e.g. Macron can be expected to go all "well yeah our citizens have been murdered and kidnapped, but there are two sides to this thing you know".
My favourite example was a pair of articles on the Guardian put almost next to each other. One was the news about some Labour councillors quitting in protest of Starmer being not enough "but it's an occupation", including the first Muslim lady councillor of Manchester, and the other article was photos of two British-Israeli teenagers assumed to have been kidnapped by Hamas, since they have not been found unlike their parents in their 80s (including a pro-Palestinian pacifist journalist father) who were found murdered.
Quote from: Iormlund on October 17, 2023, 04:27:53 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 17, 2023, 03:14:36 AMQuote from: viper37 on October 16, 2023, 08:37:00 PMThere'd be much less problems if they were all atheists. Atheists have no chosen lands and holy cities. :P
They just have a pathological hate of everyone elses.
We do?
I'd love to visit Jerusalem or Kyoto.
If you don't stroll around the place screaming den of ignorance, should be razed to the ground, then you're not fit to call yourself an atheist.
^_^
I was wondering why Israel hasn't moved in yet, then just read Biden will travel there and meet with Egypt Jordan and some Palestinian representatives as well. I am thinking maybe the US has intel that Iran means business and are offering a face-saving way for Israel to not go Old Testament on Hamas. Which would be good for the civilians but would greatly embolden Hamas.
I also read that the estimates of Hamas' tunnel network within Gaza is that it's over 500km long. So I imagine there is a fair bit or preparation - plus giving a more realistic chance for residents in the North of Gaza to get out.
It's worth pointing out there are fairly significant casualties from the air campaign already.
But yeah I believe Blinken's done something like 10-15 stops in 5 days in the region and now Biden is going for a one day trip where he'll met at least Netanyahu, Sisi, Abbas and King Abdullah. So the US has been incredibly active on shuttle diplomacy.
Wtf. They dug 500 km of tunnels and now cry about Israel turning off the water? They couldn't dig wells?
Professor Byers as now written an opinion piece for the Globe and Mail
QuoteAs a democracy, Israel should exercise restraint
MICHAEL BYERS
SPECIAL TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL
PUBLISHED YESTERDAY
Michael Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia.
There is no equivalency between Hamas and Israel.
Hamas is a terrorist organization that deliberately targets civilians. The Oct. 7 attacks were designed to cause horrific suffering. War crimes were committed, and Israel has the right to pursue the perpetrators – to capture them if possible, and kill them if not. Israel, in contrast, is a democratic state with an unwritten constitution, a still mostly independent judiciary, peaceful changes of government, and a tradition of spirited debate.
Two decades ago, as a visiting professor at Tel Aviv University, I taught a course on the laws of war. The Israeli Defense Forces sent a dozen of their young lawyers to study with me. We had many spirited debates.
It was during the Second Intifada. Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas, had recently been assassinated in Gaza by an Israeli missile. The strike was an attempt to stop a wave of suicide bombings in buses and cafés in Tel Aviv. Mr. Yassin was partly blind and confined to a wheelchair. Could he be part of the kill chain and therefore a legitimate target?
Thanks to my students, I learned that where you stand on this question depends on where you sit – in an office in Vancouver, or on a bus in Tel Aviv.
Israelis are feeling even more vulnerable today. They are also burning with rage. The nature of the Oct. 7 atrocities and their dissemination on video have ripped open Holocaust scars that were never fully closed.
But while the demand for retribution is understandable, it must be resisted.
Israel governs itself under the rule of law. A sovereign state, it has also chosen to ratify numerous international treaties, including the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
Unlike the United Nations Charter, which sets out the rules governing the recourse to force, including self-defence, the Geneva Conventions concern international humanitarian law – the rules governing the conduct of armed conflicts.
At the moment, it is impossible to say whether Israel's target selection in Gaza complies with those rules.
It is at least conceivable that Israel is only targeting Hamas's military infrastructure, its leadership and militia members. It is even conceivable that Israeli military lawyers have, in each instance, balanced the military necessity of the strike against the anticipated deaths and injuries to civilians.
However, we can say that, when bombs are dropped in densely populated neighbourhoods, the military advantage would have to be enormous to exceed the civilian harm.
We can also say that in no circumstance may attacks on civilians or civilian infrastructure be justified by similar violations on the other side. Hamas's use of civilians as human shields is illegal, but two wrongs do not make a right.
Finally, there are two rules which Israel is clearly violating.
The first is the prohibition on collective punishment, which extends beyond "collective penalties" to include "all measures of intimidation." Cutting off water, food, fuel, and electricity to more than two million people is collective punishment. The siege of Gaza cannot be justified because Hamas is holding hostages: again, two wrongs do not make a right.
The second clearly violated rule is the prohibition on forcible transfers within or from an occupied territory, for instance, from Gaza City to southern Gaza. An alleged violation of this rule is the basis of the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier this year.
Israeli lawyers will point out that there is an exception to the rule, namely that transfers may occur "if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand." But even then, the transferring power "shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated."
Clearly, those responsibilities are not being fulfilled in southern Gaza today.
Democratic countries adopt laws to control their own futures. Crafted in times of peace that allow for reflection and debate, laws are intended to guide our actions during moments of crisis and raw emotion.
The same is true among the community of nations.
Hamas seeks to drag Israel into a downward spiral of suffering and retribution, but Israel can prove that it is better than that.
As U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said last Thursday: "We democracies distinguish ourselves from terrorists by striving for a different standard – even when it's difficult – and holding ourselves to account when we fall short."
Here is the gifted link
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/gift/519974dc5e28f762a87fb14c1570523f4fb873adfcfcb945043907ccc3c41650/SECSX6V7NBASVFKBL6QWFZACRY/
Quote from: Zoupa on October 17, 2023, 11:01:47 AMWtf. They dug 500 km of tunnels and now cry about Israel turning off the water? They couldn't dig wells?
That's been Hamas' MO since 2006 - their own population are hostages, and every depravation their citizens suffer can then be blamed on Israel.
And if I recall correctly - Hamas has polluted the ground water in any event?
Quote from: Zoupa on October 17, 2023, 11:01:47 AMWtf. They dug 500 km of tunnels and now cry about Israel turning off the water? They couldn't dig wells?
If Israel turns off the water, Gaza will still have access to well water as I understand it. It's just that well water isn't safe to drink unless treated, and Gaza doesn't have water treatment capacity.
Quote from: Legbiter on October 15, 2023, 12:42:00 PMIf that story is true most gazans will be dead in 5 to 6 days. If they're not we'll know the story was false. :hmm:
:lol: You didn't read the story, did you? Nowhere in it does it say that "most gazans [sic] will be dead in 5 to 6 days."
Quote from: Valmy on October 16, 2023, 08:53:25 AMThe reality is that Gaza freely and fairly elected Hamas their leaders in 2006. Granted it was a long time ago, and I would hope that Gazans would vote differently today, but we cannot pretend like there is zero evidence the Gazans support Hamas and their aims.
Hamas received 40% of the votes in the 2006 elections, which was a plurality, not a majority. Seventy-five percent of their own voters supported the idea that Hamas should drop its opposition to the existence of Israel, and the main reasons they cited in voting for Hamas was the expected reduction in corruption. The election was not an endorsement of Hamas terrorism or the aims of Hamas.
Quote from: grumbler on October 17, 2023, 12:22:59 PMHamas received 40% of the votes in the 2006 elections, which was a plurality, not a majority. Seventy-five percent of their own voters supported the idea that Hamas should drop its opposition to the existence of Israel, and the main reasons they cited in voting for Hamas was the expected reduction in corruption. The election was not an endorsement of Hamas terrorism or the aims of Hamas.
Reduction in corruption and also in normal political terms Hamas were the change party to Fatah - and you can easily understand why people might want to kick out Fatah.
Quote from: grumbler on October 17, 2023, 12:22:59 PMQuote from: Valmy on October 16, 2023, 08:53:25 AMThe reality is that Gaza freely and fairly elected Hamas their leaders in 2006. Granted it was a long time ago, and I would hope that Gazans would vote differently today, but we cannot pretend like there is zero evidence the Gazans support Hamas and their aims.
Hamas received 40% of the votes in the 2006 elections, which was a plurality, not a majority. Seventy-five percent of their own voters supported the idea that Hamas should drop its opposition to the existence of Israel, and the main reasons they cited in voting for Hamas was the expected reduction in corruption. The election was not an endorsement of Hamas terrorism or the aims of Hamas.
on the other hand: you don't vote for a piece of a (terror-)party's program, but for all of it.
Reports of Israel bombing a hospital full of refugees, hundreds of casualties.
Reported by Hamas.
There is wider reporting on the hospital strike, but most of it coming from Hamas or Palestinian related groups, Israel has said they have no details on whether they bombed it or not.
IDF is now saying it was a failed Hamas launch.
Quote from: Maladict on October 17, 2023, 01:49:27 PMIDF is now saying it was a failed Hamas launch.
That seems vanishingly unlikely.
Does a typical Hamas rocket even have the sort of power to level such a large building? I'm obviously viewing things from a perspective of extreme skepticism towards anything reported "from" Hamas, but there is some pictures / video coming out showing a large hospital in ruins, and IDF as far as I can tell has not explicitly said what would happen, just that they "can't confirm."
I saw mention in a Tweet from Sky News that the IDF told them they may have hit a rocket cache, but were still trying to figure out what happened.
Looks like BBC had a phone interview with a Palestinian who was on sight--definitely seems like a hospital was bombed, but there is 0 way anyone knows how many are dead. So Hamas' immediate claims that "500+" dead, could be a wildly inaccurate claim, and given access to information and etc, it will probably seek to intentionally distort any evidence on this question that could be determined.
If Israel intentionally bombed a hospital it needs to be called out, regardless of whether it killed 25 people or 500, but it should be recognized Hamas has every motivation to lie about the specifics--and without reliable investigative teams on the ground the chance we ever know the full truth is minimal.
It almost seems like Israel is doing an Austria. They need to go in whilst they have the almost complete support of the western world, if they wait to long Hamas and the CCs of the world will create strong opposition.
A "Dr Zaher Kuhail" is on BBC at the hospital. His account is he saw "two planes", which he believed were F-16s dropped two rockets on the hospital. He says that there were 5000 people in the hospital, 600 are already confirmed dead, and the hospital is still burning.
I don't know this guy's background, how accurate he is on anything he is saying, but that is what he is putting out there. I will say he used a number of phrases that would be typical of someone who has a specific side of the conflict he supports (and I would not expect a Palestinian doctor to be neutral--people tend to support their countries in war time); he caused some skepticism in me when he identified the planes as "F-16s." I have no idea how a medical doctor looking up at the night sky could identify F-16s.
The political consequences of this are going to be immense--there are huge riots already broken out in the West Bank with the stated goal of deposing Abbas, PA authorities have had to fire tear gas on crowds to attempt to disperse them. An angry crowd in Jordan apparently tried to storm an Israeli consulate.
Quote from: Threviel on October 17, 2023, 02:34:30 PMIt almost seems like Israel is doing an Austria. They need to go in whilst they have the almost complete support of the western world, if they wait to long Hamas and the CCs of the world will create strong opposition.
Another way to put it is that there's a significant risk for the Western world in giving complete support to Israel at this point, as there's a real risk that Israeli actions could make that support backfire significantly.
I know there are people in the West who'd be fine with massive number of Palestinian civilian casualties for a variety of reasons, but on the whole I think the West has a limit. If Israel goes beyond that limit while fully supported by the West, that could have any number of unfortunate consequences.
Israeli spokesperson on BBC coming out stronger that it was a possible Hamas rocket, he has not said definitively, he said it is still being investigated--but he said "early indications" he was hearing from the "highest level" with the IDF indicated it wasn't their ordinance.
My assumption is due to how many eyes (including cameras) are watching, be it satellite based, aerial observations from IDF etc, there is probably video or some sort of evidence of what happened, I hope that it comes out so we can have some sort of answer.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 17, 2023, 02:37:37 PMA "Dr Zaher Kuhail" is on BBC at the hospital. His account is he saw "two planes", which he believed were F-16s dropped two rockets on the hospital. He says that there were 5000 people in the hospital, 600 are already confirmed dead, and the hospital is still burning.
I don't know this guy's background, how accurate he is on anything he is saying, but that is what he is putting out there. I will say he used a number of phrases that would be typical of someone who has a specific side of the conflict he supports (and I would not expect a Palestinian doctor to be neutral--people tend to support their countries in war time); he caused some skepticism in me when he identified the planes as "F-16s." I have no idea how a medical doctor looking up at the night sky could identify F-16s.
The political consequences of this are going to be immense--there are huge riots already broken out in the West Bank with the stated goal of deposing Abbas, PA authorities have had to fire tear gas on crowds to attempt to disperse them. An angry crowd in Jordan apparently tried to storm an Israeli consulate.
I think this is just common shorthand for military jet amongst Palestinians; just heard one describe the tempo of Israeli air strikes along the lines of 'the constant buzz of the surveillance drones, then every 5 minutes a small strike by missile/suicide drone on a particularly apartment or floor and 5-6 times an hour the F16s strike with rockets (his word) and bring down whole buildings'
I've heard other Palestinians talk of F16s over recent weeks, not heard one ever refer to other types of aircraft. I'd also guess the talk might have been influenced by the extensive debates this year about providing Ukraine with F16s.
IDF appears to be affirmatively claiming it was not them--I hope they have proof and they share it, because few people will afford them the benefit of the doubt:
QuoteThe Israel Defense Forces says that based on "intelligence information, a failed Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) rocket caused the deadly blast at the Gaza hospital."
In a statement, the IDF says that "from an analysis of the IDF's operational systems, an enemy rocket barrage was carried out towards Israel, which passed in the vicinity of the hospital, when it was hit."
"According to intelligence information, from several sources we have, the PIJ organization is responsible for the failed [rocket] fire that hit the hospital," the IDF adds.
Quote from: mongers on October 17, 2023, 02:53:41 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 17, 2023, 02:37:37 PMA "Dr Zaher Kuhail" is on BBC at the hospital. His account is he saw "two planes", which he believed were F-16s dropped two rockets on the hospital. He says that there were 5000 people in the hospital, 600 are already confirmed dead, and the hospital is still burning.
I don't know this guy's background, how accurate he is on anything he is saying, but that is what he is putting out there. I will say he used a number of phrases that would be typical of someone who has a specific side of the conflict he supports (and I would not expect a Palestinian doctor to be neutral--people tend to support their countries in war time); he caused some skepticism in me when he identified the planes as "F-16s." I have no idea how a medical doctor looking up at the night sky could identify F-16s.
The political consequences of this are going to be immense--there are huge riots already broken out in the West Bank with the stated goal of deposing Abbas, PA authorities have had to fire tear gas on crowds to attempt to disperse them. An angry crowd in Jordan apparently tried to storm an Israeli consulate.
I think this is just common shorthand for military jet amongst Palestinians; just heard one describe the tempo of Israeli air strikes along the lines of 'the constant buzz of the surveillance drones, then every 5 minutes a small strike by missile/suicide drone on a particularly apartment or floor and 5-6 times an hour the F16s strike with rockets (his word) and bring down whole buildings'
I've heard other Palestinians talk of F16s over recent weeks, not heard one ever refer to other types of aircraft. I'd also guess the talk might have been influenced by the extensive debates this year about providing Ukraine with F16s.
Then he's not reporting what he saw, but rather what he heard about from others.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2023, 02:44:37 PMI know there are people in the West who'd be fine with massive number of Palestinian civilian casualties for a variety of reasons, but on the whole I think the West has a limit. If Israel goes beyond that limit while fully supported by the West, that could have any number of unfortunate consequences.
We have also seen that there are large numbers in the west far more than fine with Israeli casualties. There's far more partying in the streets when Hamas kills Israelis than the other way around.
Of course you are right, if western audiences are fed with pictures of dead Palestinians for weeks the mood is going to change and the regular Israel-hate is going to go back up again. Perhaps rightfully so, fighting against Hamas is very supportable, bombing Gaza back to the stone age less so.
I don't trust Bibi to prioritise anything (hostages, getting the murderers, international opinion) over himself and those keeping him in power.
Quote from: Josquius on October 17, 2023, 03:14:36 AMThey just have a pathological hate of everyone elses.
Not true, I love you all. :)
Quote from: Threviel on October 17, 2023, 03:36:05 PMWe have also seen that there are large numbers in the west far more than fine with Israeli casualties. There's far more partying in the streets when Hamas kills Israelis than the other way around.
Certainly.
That's another interesting dynamic. Hamas sympathizers celebrating the killing of Israelis - especially Israeli civillians - seems to be driving anti-Muslim sentiment and thus increasing support for Israel.
QuoteOf course you are right, if western audiences are fed with pictures of dead Palestinians for weeks the mood is going to change and the regular Israel-hate is going to go back up again. Perhaps rightfully so, fighting against Hamas is very supportable, bombing Gaza back to the stone age less so.
Yes. That's part of the calculus that Israel has to make. They have the forces to inflict a lot of damage on Hamas. It's unclear to me what sort of practical / tactical constraints they have on operations, but presumably there are some. Still, Israel has the initiative.
What is Israel going to do? How do they value the gains they make in their attack on Hamas, and what price are they willing to pay - for their own troops and in terms of risk to Palestinian civilians? And how much weight do they give to the PR battles being waged in the West and the Arab world?
Hamas, for their part, seem to be as aggressive and intransigent as they can given the circumstances.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 17, 2023, 12:43:20 PMQuote from: grumbler on October 17, 2023, 12:22:59 PMHamas received 40% of the votes in the 2006 elections, which was a plurality, not a majority. Seventy-five percent of their own voters supported the idea that Hamas should drop its opposition to the existence of Israel, and the main reasons they cited in voting for Hamas was the expected reduction in corruption. The election was not an endorsement of Hamas terrorism or the aims of Hamas.
on the other hand: you don't vote for a piece of a (terror-)party's program, but for all of it.
Sinn Féin was elected democratically in Ireland, yet it was associated with the IRA for a while. Its policy was similar to that of the IRA. Yet, I'm not convinced a majority of its voters voted for terrorism.
But Sheilb would know more about the subject.
Quote from: viper37 on October 17, 2023, 04:04:35 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 17, 2023, 12:43:20 PMQuote from: grumbler on October 17, 2023, 12:22:59 PMHamas received 40% of the votes in the 2006 elections, which was a plurality, not a majority. Seventy-five percent of their own voters supported the idea that Hamas should drop its opposition to the existence of Israel, and the main reasons they cited in voting for Hamas was the expected reduction in corruption. The election was not an endorsement of Hamas terrorism or the aims of Hamas.
on the other hand: you don't vote for a piece of a (terror-)party's program, but for all of it.
Sinn Féin was elected democratically in Ireland, yet it was associated with the IRA for a while. Its policy was similar to that of the IRA. Yet, I'm not convinced a majority of its voters voted for terrorism.
That's a completely different story and you know it (and I'm NOT a Sinn Fein fan).
Sinn Fein signed the Good Friday Accords in the 90s. I don't think they've ever formally renounced the IRA or violence in general, but there hasn't been republican-sponsored violence in Northern Ireland for almost 20 years.
So no, a vote for Sinn Fein in 2023 is not a vote for terrorism.
Mind you I don't really love the idea of holding the people of Gaza today responsible for how the election of 2006 went.
Quote from: grumbler on October 17, 2023, 12:22:59 PMQuote from: Valmy on October 16, 2023, 08:53:25 AMThe reality is that Gaza freely and fairly elected Hamas their leaders in 2006. Granted it was a long time ago, and I would hope that Gazans would vote differently today, but we cannot pretend like there is zero evidence the Gazans support Hamas and their aims.
Hamas received 40% of the votes in the 2006 elections, which was a plurality, not a majority. Seventy-five percent of their own voters supported the idea that Hamas should drop its opposition to the existence of Israel, and the main reasons they cited in voting for Hamas was the expected reduction in corruption. The election was not an endorsement of Hamas terrorism or the aims of Hamas.
They won 44.5% of the vote but that is both Gaza and the West Bank. I am operating under the assumption that Hamas had more support in Gaza than the West Bank, but that might not be correct now that I think about it.
In any case Hamas won 15 seats in Gaza, with Fatah taking 6 and minor parties took 3. Pretty solid majority there in the district elections. I am not sure, nor can I easily find, the list results for just Gaza from that election.
None-the-less in an election where moving forward in the peace project was the main thing the United States was hoping for, putting the extremist war party in charge sent a clear message. Palestine doesn't want peace. If, in fact, they elected the extremist war party for reasons other than their desire for extreme war, well that's just another Palestinian tragedy.
Just like if the Israelis just happen to be electing their own right wing warmongers because they just really like their dog catcher policies.
Seems unlikely, but I am not there. I don't know for sure.
Quote from: Gups on October 17, 2023, 03:51:38 PMI don't trust Bibi to prioritise anything (hostages, getting the murderers, international opinion) over himself and those keeping him in power.
Same - I don't hink there's anything in his past 30 years in Israeli politics to give any reason to think that. Hopefully other parties can have some influence in a national unity government. But if his priorities are keeping himself in power as they've been all the way through the rest of his career then I think they'd be better off stepping away.
QuoteThat's another interesting dynamic. Hamas sympathizers celebrating the killing of Israelis - especially Israeli civillians - seems to be driving anti-Muslim sentiment and thus increasing support for Israel.
I'm not so sure that's how it's going. There's definitely an increase in Islamophobia in part driven by the protests. I think Sadiq Khan has said hate crimes against Jews and Muslims are up 300% since the attack by Hamas (although hate crimes against Jews are up sixfold - so I'm not sure it's evenly distributed).
Thing I've found striking is how much old school, isolationist and frankly anti-semitic stuff I'm seeing on the American far-right - who are the sort of people I think in previous phases of conflict in the Middle East have been vocal Israel supporters. It's not driving it out yet, but possibly worth watching.
QuoteSinn Féin was elected democratically in Ireland, yet it was associated with the IRA for a while. Its policy was similar to that of the IRA. Yet, I'm not convinced a majority of its voters voted for terrorism.
Sinn Fein were and are run by the IRA's Army Council. They are not merely associated, Sinn Fein are the public, political wing of the IRA and take direction from them. They are not a democratic party in any normal sense of the world, according to both the Garda and British police forces.
They've not had a breakthrough in the south but haven't come first in an election and there's still a cordon sanitaire around working with them for Fianna Fail and Fine Gael. I think that will break down. I think part of that is declining and distorting memories of the Troubles, their position as a left-wing populist party and, for some in the south, I think a slight cosplaying of radical Republican politics. However I think during the Troubles, Sinn Fein never won more than 2% of the vote in the south.
In the north they have come first. They are, under power-sharing, required to be part of the government - you can't form a government without Sinn Fein and I don't think there's been any point since 1998 when you could have. There is a significant chunk of nationalist opinion in Northern Ireland that believes in physical force republicanism and the violence by the IRA. I don't think it was ever a majority and elections show that nationalists tended to favour the SDLP who were committed to non-violent nationalism. They were also essential in negotiating the Good Friday Agreement, as were, on the other side, the more moderate Ulster Unionist Party. However both have ultimately been supplanted by more radical forces on each side: Sinn Fein and the DUP (who have never endorsed violence and don't have links to loyalist paramilitaries). That might reflect an increasing distance from the violence, but I think it also reflects that mandatory power sharing is pretty zero sum. It normally exists in a post-conflict society and if each community has a say by law then I think that structurally encourages you to vote for the more hardline voices within your community (which I think has also happened in Bosnia and Lebanon, say).
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 17, 2023, 02:37:37 PMI have no idea how a medical doctor looking up at the night sky could identify F-16s.
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/profzaherkuhail
Prof. Zaher Kuhail (Kyle)
Prof.Civ. Eng., LSBU President,Academy of eLearning-Britain Former Dean Eng.ASU, Founder&President, Univ. of Palestine It's likely not a typical night sky, it's probably well lit up.
If he saw two fighter aircraft, it's logical to assume he saw F-16s, since that's what the Israeli Air Force mostly use. They only have an handful of F-35 and they will keep it in reserve for a conflict with a major power. F-16s are sufficient to destroy Gaza and they are often seen by Palestinians of the area, so they are easily recognizable.
As for the number of casualties, we will have to wait to be certain, but it will be high. :(
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2023, 04:16:52 PMSinn Fein signed the Good Friday Accords in the 90s. I don't think they've ever formally renounced the IRA or violence in general, but there hasn't been republican-sponsored violence in Northern Ireland for almost 20 years.
Yeah 2005 is when the IRA announce the end of their "armed campaign" and they decommission their weapons.
There has still been Republican (and Loyalist) violence in Northern Ireland, but it is at a far lower level and it is by dissident paramilitaries, not the main parties to the Good Friday Agreement.
Quote from: Barrister on October 17, 2023, 04:16:52 PM... there hasn't been republican-sponsored violence in Northern Ireland for almost 20 years.
I'm not sure that's correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Real_IRA_and_New_IRA_actions#2023
Though Sinn Feinn is not associated with the Real IRA or the New IRA as I understand it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 17, 2023, 04:21:46 PMSinn Fein were and are run by the IRA's Army Council. They are not merely associated, Sinn Fein are the public, political wing of the IRA and take direction from them. They are not a democratic party in any normal sense of the world, according to both the Garda and British police forces.
See, I knew I could rely on you. Quicker than to read all of Wikipedia's sources. :P
Also I am cynical enough about this conflict that if a Hamas or Netanyahu supporter insisted they had reasons other than wanting to win a victory over their enemies through war or other means...I would be suspicious they are lying either to me or themselves to cover up the fact that they are a bad person.
Hezbollah is calling for a day of rage tomorrow.
Quote from: Valmy on October 17, 2023, 04:17:04 PMNone-the-less in an election where moving forward in the peace project was the main thing the United States was hoping for, putting the extremist war party in charge sent a clear message. Palestine doesn't want peace. If, in fact, they elected the extremist war party for reasons other than their desire for extreme war, well that's just another Palestinian tragedy.
I agree they fucked up royally, whatever their reasoning. Fatah may have been corrupt, but it was sincere in its desire to move toward peace while Hamas clearly clamored for war against Israel, and that end result was more suffering for the Palestinian people.
Still, the US chose poorly in a couple of elections too. At the Federal level, anyway. But Americans had the chance to correct their mistakes (and make others ;) ). Something the Palestinians never got a chance to, either in Gaza because of Hamas, or in the West Bank because it's unmanageable.
Quote from: Threviel on October 17, 2023, 03:36:05 PMWe have also seen that there are large numbers in the west far more than fine with Israeli casualties. There's far more partying in the streets when Hamas kills Israelis than the other way around.
I'm not so sure about that. It used to be that way, but it's no longer that. There's a lot of partying in many communities when an IDF strikes kills Palestinians.
Big job for Biden tomorrow. Imagine Trump flying out there to make a deal with everyone. :wacko:
Jordan have I think said they won't meet with Biden - I assume because of the hospital.
Quote from: Maladict on October 17, 2023, 05:18:07 PMBig job for Biden tomorrow. Imagine Trump flying out there to make a deal with everyone. :wacko:
You mean like the Abraham Accord?
"Don't underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up." - President Obama
Diplomacy isn't going to fix anything in this situation, no matter who is President, the probably that Biden can fix anything (other than some bribes for his family members) is zero.
Israel either invades Gaza and crushes the Palestinian's will to continue fighting, or there is another half-measure that just creates another temporary cease fire. Most likely just as Israel starts to make progress the rest of the world will pressure Israel to stop short of victory, which means nothing will be resolved and the can will get kicked further down the road until the next attack will be even worse.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 17, 2023, 02:06:15 PMDoes a typical Hamas rocket even have the sort of power to level such a large building? I'm obviously viewing things from a perspective of extreme skepticism towards anything reported "from" Hamas, but there is some pictures / video coming out showing a large hospital in ruins, and IDF as far as I can tell has not explicitly said what would happen, just that they "can't confirm."
Yeah, it strikes me extremely unlikely that a single Hamas rocket could do so much damage. The only scenario that makes sense is if they were firing from the hospital, and the launch accident blew up the whole cache at the launch site.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 17, 2023, 05:43:17 PMQuote from: Maladict on October 17, 2023, 05:18:07 PMBig job for Biden tomorrow. Imagine Trump flying out there to make a deal with everyone. :wacko:
You mean like the Abraham Accord?
"Don't underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up." - President Obama
Diplomacy isn't going to fix anything in this situation, no matter who is President, the probably that Biden can fix anything (other than some bribes for his family members) is zero.
Israel either invades Gaza and crushes the Palestinian's will to continue fighting, or there is another half-measure that just creates another temporary cease fire. Most likely just as Israel starts to make progress the rest of the world will pressure Israel to stop short of victory, which means nothing will be resolved and the can will get kicked further down the road until the next attack will be even worse.
:o
Good to see you again, Hans
Hello Hans :cheers:
You haven't aged a day.
Howdy Hans.
Heard on NPR that PA, Jordan and Egypt (?) cancelled their meetings with Joe because of the hospital.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 17, 2023, 06:38:14 PMHowdy Hans.
Heard on NPR that PA, Jordan and Egypt (?) cancelled their meetings with Joe because of the hospital.
Also protests in Amman, Beirut and the West Bank.
I feel like events may start spiraling out of control. I don't Israel can stop here, that would embolden terrorists massively and in any case it would end Bibi's reign meaning he would end up in prison.
So it may come down to Iran whether this escalates further.
Yeah, hard to see how Joe comes away from this with anything that looks like a win. In fact, from a purely political perspective, it could make him look humiliated. I guess he has to look like he at least tried.
As things stand in this very moment, this looks like a massive Hamas and Iran win. Not even Jordan wants to be seen negotiating with Israel and it's allies, can't see the Saudis signing any agreements with them in the foreseeable.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 17, 2023, 12:43:20 PMQuote from: grumbler on October 17, 2023, 12:22:59 PMQuote from: Valmy on October 16, 2023, 08:53:25 AMThe reality is that Gaza freely and fairly elected Hamas their leaders in 2006. Granted it was a long time ago, and I would hope that Gazans would vote differently today, but we cannot pretend like there is zero evidence the Gazans support Hamas and their aims.
Hamas received 40% of the votes in the 2006 elections, which was a plurality, not a majority. Seventy-five percent of their own voters supported the idea that Hamas should drop its opposition to the existence of Israel, and the main reasons they cited in voting for Hamas was the expected reduction in corruption. The election was not an endorsement of Hamas terrorism or the aims of Hamas.
on the other hand: you don't vote for a piece of a (terror-)party's program, but for all of it.
The Party they elected was the Change and Reform list, which espoused no terrorism. C&R, which was the political face of Hamas, campaigned on domestic issues.
And Hans, you've clearly become even more unhinged.
Twitter post claiming to show Palestinian fired missile breaking apart, with shrapnel hitting the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital's yard: https://twitter.com/GeoConfirmed/status/1714390254935851272
I can't speak to the trustworthiness of the source.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2023, 06:59:22 PMTwitter post claiming to show Palestinian fired missile breaking apart, with shrapnel hitting the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital's yard: https://twitter.com/GeoConfirmed/status/1714390254935851272
I can't speak to the trustworthiness of the source.
I can't tell anything from that film.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2023, 06:59:22 PMTwitter post claiming to show Palestinian fired missile breaking apart, with shrapnel hitting the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital's yard: https://twitter.com/GeoConfirmed/status/1714390254935851272
I can't speak to the trustworthiness of the source.
There's a close up mobile phone video of the explosion at the hospital, it is preceded by a loud whooshing sound of the projectile.
I very much doubt a few 10s of kgs of explosives in a rocket or part of one could do that much damage, seems to be more consistent with a much larger AS missile or bomb, something in the 100s of kg range.
Quote from: Tamas on October 17, 2023, 04:30:26 AMOne of the criticism levelled by the "but it is an occupation!" crowd is European leaders being too pro-Israel, SHOCKINGLY taking the attacked side in a case of mass murder and kidnapping. Well that basic logic aside it has just sunk in that many of the victims and the kidnapped people are citizens of these various countries. Like one of the trophy slaves hostages showcased in a recent Hamas video was a young French-Israeli girl. So I really don't know how e.g. Macron can be expected to go all "well yeah our citizens have been murdered and kidnapped, but there are two sides to this thing you know".
My favourite example was a pair of articles on the Guardian put almost next to each other. One was the news about some Labour councillors quitting in protest of Starmer being not enough "but it's an occupation", including the first Muslim lady councillor of Manchester, and the other article was photos of two British-Israeli teenagers assumed to have been kidnapped by Hamas, since they have not been found unlike their parents in their 80s (including a pro-Palestinian pacifist journalist father) who were found murdered.
Is there a perception among whomever you speak to that Orban made the right call in adopting a siege mentality during the migrant crisis?
Quote from: mongers on October 17, 2023, 07:19:56 PMQuote from: Jacob on October 17, 2023, 06:59:22 PMTwitter post claiming to show Palestinian fired missile breaking apart, with shrapnel hitting the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital's yard: https://twitter.com/GeoConfirmed/status/1714390254935851272
I can't speak to the trustworthiness of the source.
There's a close up mobile phone video of the explosion at the hospital, it is preceded by a loud whooshing sound of the projectile.
I very much doubt a few 10s of kgs of explosives in a rocket or part of one could do that much damage, seems to be more consistent with a much larger AS missile or bomb, something in the 100s of kg range.
What is your knowledge regarding the relative destruction regarding missile payloads?
Mahmoud Abbas is toast.
I've seen an argument made that we shouldn't judge the destructive potential of a rocket by what it does when it lands in Israel. If it lands right after launch, you have all that fuel meant to get you to Israel exploding right there on the spot. Plus, it would never be beyond the pale for Hamas to stockpile munitions at hospitals, precisely because Israel wouldn't want to bomb them, although it seems like you need a whole bunch of low probability events to come together for an errant projectile to find just the place where munitions are stockpiled.
This is such a clusterfuck and it's spiraling out of control. We will probably know the truth soon from all the surveillance data but it won't matter.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 17, 2023, 08:46:50 PMThis is such a clusterfuck and it's spiraling out of control. We will probably know the truth soon from all the surveillance data but it won't matter.
Isn't this what you wanted, can't drive the Palestinians out of Gaza without atrocities to get them to flee?
Quote from: mongers on October 17, 2023, 08:54:45 PMQuote from: Hamilcar on October 17, 2023, 08:46:50 PMThis is such a clusterfuck and it's spiraling out of control. We will probably know the truth soon from all the surveillance data but it won't matter.
Isn't this what you wanted, can't drive the Palestinians out of Gaza without atrocities to get them to flee?
I don't believe for one second that the IAF targeted a hospital to kill a bunch of people. The fact that you do makes your antisemitism show.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 17, 2023, 09:07:59 PMI don't believe for one second that the IAF targeted a hospital to kill a bunch of people. The fact that you do makes your antisemitism show.
That's stretching things. I don't believe they purposely targeted a hospital either, but there are the precedents of Deir Yassim and Sabra & Shatila.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 17, 2023, 09:28:03 PMQuote from: Hamilcar on October 17, 2023, 09:07:59 PMI don't believe for one second that the IAF targeted a hospital to kill a bunch of people. The fact that you do makes your antisemitism show.
That's stretching things. I don't believe they purposely targeted a hospital either, but there are the precedents of Deir Yassim and Sabra & Shatila.
So you think it's plausible that the IDF general staff sat in a meeting earlier and said "lol there's a hospital full of people, let's hit it with a JDAM"?
I think what he might mean to say is that the IDF is absolutely trying to avoid such incidents, but accidents do happen.
Quote from: Syt on October 18, 2023, 12:37:03 AMI think what he might mean to say is that the IDF is absolutely trying to avoid such incidents, but accidents do happen.
You are being very generous, but that's not at all what Yi is saying.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 17, 2023, 09:07:59 PMQuote from: mongers on October 17, 2023, 08:54:45 PMQuote from: Hamilcar on October 17, 2023, 08:46:50 PMThis is such a clusterfuck and it's spiraling out of control. We will probably know the truth soon from all the surveillance data but it won't matter.
Isn't this what you wanted, can't drive the Palestinians out of Gaza without atrocities to get them to flee?
I don't believe for one second that the IAF targeted a hospital to kill a bunch of people. The fact that you do makes your antisemitism show.
Ah yes. Criticising Israel = anti semitism.
This is a key path for recruiting to actual anti semitism.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 17, 2023, 09:07:59 PMQuote from: mongers on October 17, 2023, 08:54:45 PMQuote from: Hamilcar on October 17, 2023, 08:46:50 PMThis is such a clusterfuck and it's spiraling out of control. We will probably know the truth soon from all the surveillance data but it won't matter.
Isn't this what you wanted, can't drive the Palestinians out of Gaza without atrocities to get them to flee?
I don't believe for one second that the IAF targeted a hospital to kill a bunch of people. The fact that you do makes your antisemitism show.
Since when has IDF = Jews?
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 17, 2023, 10:27:40 PMSo you think it's plausible that the IDF general staff sat in a meeting earlier and said "lol there's a hospital full of people, let's hit it with a JDAM"?
It stretches the bounds of my credulity. But I do not think asserting bad intent is a clear cut sign of anti Semitism.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 18, 2023, 04:11:44 AMQuote from: Hamilcar on October 17, 2023, 10:27:40 PMSo you think it's plausible that the IDF general staff sat in a meeting earlier and said "lol there's a hospital full of people, let's hit it with a JDAM"?
It stretches the bounds of my credulity. But I do not think asserting bad intent is a clear cut sign of anti Semitism.
It's not any sign of anti-semitism unless anti-semitism is defined as including any criticism of any action or intention of any Jewish person.
Some thoughts expressed by Ezra Klein on his NYT podcast. About 15 minutes in length. Well worth a listen.
https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-ezra-klein-show/id1548604447?i=1000631712100
I really hope that Isreal can produce the proof it says it has that this was caused by a failed launch. I also hope that it will be possible to show that the evidence has not been tampered with. That won't persuade those who will always take the side of the Palestinians but it will for the middle ground.
Quote from: Gups on October 18, 2023, 04:50:14 AMI really hope that Isreal can produce the proof it says it has that this was caused by a failed launch. I also hope that it will be possible to show that the evidence has not been tampered with. That won't persuade those who will always take the side of the Palestinians but it will for the middle ground.
The IDF has provided proof, including conversations discussing the failed rocket.
The hospital wasn't even hit. A parking lot was damaged.
Just to summarize what happened:
- A PIJ rocket fell on a parking lot and damaged some cars
- Hamas claimed that the IDF destroyed a hospital full of people and killed 500+ civilians
- You all run with the story or at least go "yeah that's plausible"
- The IDF spent a few hours researching what happened just to be sure, and of evidence including the terrorists talking about the missile
- THE HOSPITAL IS STILL STANDING AND THERE ARE NO BODIES
But yeah. Maybe the Israelis could have done it.
Fuck off.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 18, 2023, 05:26:59 AMQuote from: Gups on October 18, 2023, 04:50:14 AMI really hope that Isreal can produce the proof it says it has that this was caused by a failed launch. I also hope that it will be possible to show that the evidence has not been tampered with. That won't persuade those who will always take the side of the Palestinians but it will for the middle ground.
The IDF has provided proof, including conversations discussing the failed rocket.
They have provided an audio clip of two peeople speaking in Arab who the IDF say are Hamas operatives. Th eocnversations relates third hand reports. Even assuming it is real, it is very far from "proof".
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 18, 2023, 05:52:51 AMJust to summarize what happened:
- A PIJ rocket fell on a parking lot and damaged some cars
- Hamas claimed that the IDF destroyed a hospital full of people and killed 500+ civilians
- You all run with the story or at least go "yeah that's plausible"
- The IDF spent a few hours researching what happened just to be sure, and of evidence including the terrorists talking about the missile
- THE HOSPITAL IS STILL STANDING AND THERE ARE NO BODIES
But yeah. Maybe the Israelis could have done it.
Fuck off.
Personally, I've not reached any conclusions about this pending further information. But you certainly have.
You'd think producing proof that the hospital is still standing would be fairly easy for the IDF.
Quote from: Tamas on October 18, 2023, 06:10:14 AMYou'd think producing proof that the hospital is still standing would be fairly easy for the IDF.
https://x.com/idf/status/1714513625598021868?s=61
Yeah, so apparently they did (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-18/ty-article/israeli-army-presents-video-audio-to-show-islamic-jihad-behind-gaza-hospital-blast/0000018b-41f1-d242-abef-53f7d6570000)
God damn, the burden of proof for Israel is insane...
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 18, 2023, 06:13:35 AMQuote from: Tamas on October 18, 2023, 06:10:14 AMYou'd think producing proof that the hospital is still standing would be fairly easy for the IDF.
https://x.com/idf/status/1714513625598021868?s=61
Damn.
I accept your apologies now.
Quote from: Josquius on October 18, 2023, 02:22:49 AMAh yes. Criticising Israel = anti semitism.
This is a key path for recruiting to actual anti semitism.
"Those evil Jews made me hate Jews! :cry: "
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 17, 2023, 09:07:59 PMI don't believe for one second that the IAF targeted a hospital to kill a bunch of people. The fact that you do makes your antisemitism show.
:blink:
Guess I get to find out how the forum ignore button works.
Pity as you always struck me as an OK, reasonable guy.
Quote from: DGuller on October 18, 2023, 07:38:18 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 18, 2023, 02:22:49 AMAh yes. Criticising Israel = anti semitism.
This is a key path for recruiting to actual anti semitism.
"Those evil Jews made me hate Jews! :cry: "
Yes.
Evil members of a group are a usual way one gets hooked into hating that group as a whole.
People who are against anti-semitism conflating criticism of Israel with anti-semitism really helps to blur the boundaries in peoples minds and is a key path by which people who might otherwise be perfectly fine with Jewish people can become fellow travellers and ultimately recruits of the died in the wool true blue anti semites.
But then in large part I do suspect that's exactly as planned really. Its very useful to tar any criticism with a beyond the pale and unacceptable brush.
Quote from: Tamas on October 17, 2023, 04:30:26 AMOne of the criticism levelled by the "but it is an occupation!" crowd is European leaders being too pro-Israel, SHOCKINGLY taking the attacked side in a case of mass murder and kidnapping. Well that basic logic aside it has just sunk in that many of the victims and the kidnapped people are citizens of these various countries. Like one of the trophy slaves hostages showcased in a recent Hamas video was a young French-Israeli girl. So I really don't know how e.g. Macron can be expected to go all "well yeah our citizens have been murdered and kidnapped, but there are two sides to this thing you know".
And to his credit, Macron has said that there's no "Yes, but..." even to the bomb threats at Versailles and the Louvre.
Hamas's strategy is beyond my understanding (as far as I can make it out, they're an organization that beheads babies in order to raise awareness for Palestine; combining the worst excesses of the Khmer Rouge and Stop Oil); so it's not surprising that I don't see the propaganda value of releasing videos of this girl:
(https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/231016153550-mia-schem-hamas-hostage.jpg?q=w_1110,c_fill/f_webp)
Am I supposed to sympathize with Hamas because this is clearly the face of the evil Zionist oppressor? Does this somehow top decapitating babies, so that I should fear or hate Hamas more now?
Quote from: Threviel on October 18, 2023, 06:14:22 AMYeah, so apparently they did (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-18/ty-article/israeli-army-presents-video-audio-to-show-islamic-jihad-behind-gaza-hospital-blast/0000018b-41f1-d242-abef-53f7d6570000)
God damn, the burden of proof for Israel is insane...
While many, even in the media it seems, are all to willing to believe Hamas press communiques. You'd think they'd have learned by now after a 600 days of dealing with Russian propaganda to be a bit more discerning
So the Hospital is still standing? 500 killed is just a lie?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 18, 2023, 07:55:47 AMSo the Hospital is still standing? 500 killed is just a lie?
Yes.
And apparently Hamas is more credible than Israel.
No wonder accusations of anti-semitism go around when even normally level headed user here seem to want to believe the Hamas lies without any evidence and demands an unreasonable amount of evidence from Israel. I don't think there are any anti-semites here, but the anti-semite propaganda sure does seem to do a number on lots of people, directly and indirectly.
I have a hard time believing the UK, France or the US has the same requirements on proofs when dealing with batshit insane terrorist groups.
I will hold off on believing anything about the hospital bombing pending some experts reporting on the IDF evidence—but on balance it seems unlikely this was Israel.
No cratering at the hospital, looks like a large incendiary blast in the parking lot. All the information that has come out from the moment this story broke has been additional pieces bolstering claims the rocket was fired from Gaza, that it was a Gazan rocket, and there has been no additional evidence of Israeli planes in the area, of Israeli airstrikes at the time of the bombing, etc.
While Israel is not blindly trustworthy don't trust Hamas & the Palestinians on anything. They will lie, they need to. They have no friends.
Yeah, distrusting Israel is sensible, but one should take anything coming from Hamas/Gaza authorities as lies until proved otherwise.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 18, 2023, 08:32:22 AMWhile Israel is not blindly trustworthy don't trust Hamas & the Palestinians on anything. They will lie, they need to. They have no friends.
I don't think people were trusting Hamas but the way the media reported them. This is an example of why I'm not sure the media can simply debunk disinformation/misinformation or "fact check" our way to reality. But what they can do and I think they should do is admit uncertainty and explain the process of how they report something that is uncertain. That might in this case have led to a radically different framing of last night's news - which has had real world impact from cancelled meetings with Biden to really cynical use by countries like Iran. It would, I think, have looked a bit more like - this has happened and blame is circulating on social media, we cannot at this point with any confidence attribute responsibility and maybe explaining how they get to that degree of confidence.
I've heard journalists talk about how so many accusations of bias or conspiracy that they get are actually basically a misunderstanding of how journalism works or just reporting conventions. I think they need to be clearer about that bit even if it erodes their position as an authoritative voice (not least because I think it's pretty eroded in society).
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 18, 2023, 08:32:22 AMWhile Israel is not blindly trustworthy don't trust Hamas & the Palestinians on anything. They will lie, they need to. They have no friends.
Once again, please stop equating the terrorist organization HAMAS with all Palestinians.
I would not trust a thing HAMAS says. But I don't extend that distrust to all Palestinians.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 18, 2023, 08:38:11 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on October 18, 2023, 08:32:22 AMWhile Israel is not blindly trustworthy don't trust Hamas & the Palestinians on anything. They will lie, they need to. They have no friends.
I don't think people were trusting Hamas but the way the media reported them. This is an example of why I'm not sure the media can simply debunk disinformation/misinformation or "fact check" our way to reality. But what they can do and I think they should do is admit uncertainty and explain the process of how they report something that is uncertain. That might in this case have led to a radically different framing of last night's news - which has had real world impact from cancelled meetings with Biden to really cynical use by countries like Iran. It would, I think, have looked a bit more like - this has happened and blame is circulating on social media, we cannot at this point with any confidence attribute responsibility and maybe explaining how they get to that degree of confidence.
I've heard journalists talk about how so many accusations of bias or conspiracy that they get are actually basically a misunderstanding of how journalism works or just reporting conventions. I think they need to be clearer about that bit even if it erodes their position as an authoritative voice (not least because I think it's pretty eroded in society).
Yeah. Like to be honest, for us forum posters and such ilk, Israel has been waging a large bombing campaign inside of Gaza. It was a reasonable assumption at first brush that if a hospital got bombed it was probably the IDF--I don't believe the IDF is deliberately targeting hospitals, but every war America has ever fought, we have had bombings go wrong. Either intel or targeting data gets a target wrong and we bomb something we weren't supposed to, operator error occurs, technical failures occur etc.
But I'm not speaking to millions of people like the BBC, NYT, or other media that ran really heavy with the "IDF kills 500+" narrative. In fact even on the forums I post on I was taking the position of "well let's see", which apparently was more reticence than a lot of the Western media had.
One thing I notice is NYT has been really "loose" with the headlines on its war liveblog, which that headline is often on their front page of their website. I get that a live blog may not be scrutinized in terms of journalistic standards as much as a piece of "edited reporting", but when you have as big an audience as some of these Western media, I think you have an obligation to be really careful with what sort of "hot takes" you're blasting out to millions.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 18, 2023, 08:50:10 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on October 18, 2023, 08:32:22 AMWhile Israel is not blindly trustworthy don't trust Hamas & the Palestinians on anything. They will lie, they need to. They have no friends.
Once again, please stop equating the terrorist organization HAMAS with all Palestinians.
I would not trust a thing HAMAS says. But I don't extend that distrust to all Palestinians.
I did not equal them. I wrote "&" there to distinguish the two from each other. I will continue to distrust all Palestinians, especially those leading them from exile.
In related news, but I'm sure one of our resident Frenchman will deal with it more extensively in the French politics thread (assuming we have one): apparently Nupes just imploded because melenchon likes Hamas too much.
Edit: stupid tiny mobile keyboard and its evil twin, autocorrect
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 18, 2023, 09:16:33 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 18, 2023, 08:50:10 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on October 18, 2023, 08:32:22 AMWhile Israel is not blindly trustworthy don't trust Hamas & the Palestinians on anything. They will lie, they need to. They have no friends.
Once again, please stop equating the terrorist organization HAMAS with all Palestinians.
I would not trust a thing HAMAS says. But I don't extend that distrust to all Palestinians.
I did not equal them. I wrote "&" there to distinguish the two from each other. I will continue to distrust all Palestinians, especially those leading them from exile.
I am confused. If you distrust all Palestinians, why are you quibbling about my criticism of you saying you distrust all Palestinians?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 18, 2023, 09:13:17 AMBut I'm not speaking to millions of people like the BBC, NYT, or other media that ran really heavy with the "IDF kills 500+" narrative. In fact even on the forums I post on I was taking the position of "well let's see", which apparently was more reticence than a lot of the Western media had.
Obviously I haven't seen all of the BBC's output but the two news reports I saw on TV yesterday and teh radio reports I listened to were that a hospital had been badly damaged, there were claims of up to 500 dead, Hamas was claiming it was a missle strike by IDF, IDF had not yet commented.
I distrust all news presenters on Fox News because of their editorial bias and selection.
I do not equate Bill Hemmer with Laura Ingraham.
Both those statements can be true.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 18, 2023, 09:28:49 AMI distrust all news presenters on Fox News because of their editorial bias and selection.
I do not equate Bill Hemmer with Laura Ingraham.
Both those statements can be true.
I would assume Fox News would be super pro Israel. A large portion of their audience are no doubt millennialists.
*edit*
I mean it's separate from your point, just musings.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 18, 2023, 09:13:17 AMBut I'm not speaking to millions of people like the BBC, NYT, or other media that ran really heavy with the "IDF kills 500+" narrative. In fact even on the forums I post on I was taking the position of "well let's see", which apparently was more reticence than a lot of the Western media had.
Interesting thread from John Burn-Murdoch on part of this issue here:
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1714648538746118265
TLDR many big news organisations don't have OSINT or data teams (though some do) despite the fact that this is a key part of journalism in the modern world. I'd add, crucially, that it's also the information that the public will often find easily accessible online/being shared on social media so the media's role in explaining and interpreting is really key. Even when organisations have those teams they are treated warily as they're often younger and have skills /backgrounds that is very different from more "traditional" journalists so they're not as relied on/used as they could be in an emerging situation. Again I think getting comfortable with explaining uncertainty is really important (and perhaps even more important) when a situation is moving quickly and very unclear.
So when you're in a situation like this which is rapidly developing, fog of war etc - the fall back is correspondents reporting what a "source" or a "spokesman" has said and providing commentary on videos circulating on social media. Most media organisations either don't have the team to really guide them, or don't trust them enough to favour their run (which is also less definitive and likely more slow) over a prominent reporter's sources.
As I say I think this is part of a wider social shift where we are swimming in information and increasingly the old media standbys of "someone told me", vox pops with witnesses etc needs to be supplemented with more prominent analysis of all that information. Especially because the raw information is so often available to us all on social media which causes us to doubt the traditional media's stories.
I'd add that aside from any of this the BBC reporter saying live that it was hard to see what it could be except for an Israeli bomb because of the size etc was just a general editorial clusterfuck. There's places and times when reporters should be invited to speculate. Breaking news, without confirmed facts that's clearly very significant isn't that time.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 18, 2023, 09:18:25 AMIn related news, but I'm sure one of resident Frenchman will deal with it more extensively in the French politics thread (assuming we have one): apparently Nupes just imploded be melenchon likes Hamas too much
Huh?
Really good point sheilbh abovr. "Source X and Y is saying" style journalism doesn't provide much value in a hyperconnected world where everyone and their bots are posting stuff on social media. Where trad journalism can still provide value added is in interpreting and making sense of the cacophony of information and misinformation.
Two thoughts on the Hospital story:
1) I am glad that the hospital was not blown up. I hope it continues to not be blown up.
2) There seemed to be an concerted (and effective) social media push on the "Israel cruelly and deliberately targeted the hospital and hundreds are dead," with little effort to counter it. It seems to me that Hamas / anti-Israel groups have much better capabilities in the information warfare space than Israel. Were I in charge of Israeli strategic planning, I'd consider investing resources there.
I totally agree, but that trad journalism is very new for newsrooms because some will be the old school reporting of speaking to sources and spokespeople and witnesses, but another strand wll be interpreting and analysing the flood of information.
And I think it requires a different approach to an extent. In the same way as "our man in x" or correspondent reporting is based on the trust and assumption that they're speaking to people, seeing things or, in fact, have sources in the areas they're talking about. I don't think we are sophisticated enough in how we interpret all the information that's available or to take it on trust (and maybe we'll get there) - so it requires interpretation but also explanation. Particularly around the OSINT stuff which I do not understand at all.
The other thing is that I think that lots of media organisations have those teams for big investigations. A long, detailed analysis of what satellite imagery tells us about the camps in Xinjiang or the results of sifting through terabytes of data from a leak. Those are multi-month, big projects - I think big media organisations maybe need almost a standing data and visual analysis team that is called for breaking news too. Just like, in the traditional model, the correspondent in DC or Jerusalem would be feeding in reporting (and, in the modern world, expected to contribute to liveblogs or pieces to cam). I think it's a genuinely new type of journalism and is still perhaps a little siloed.
Edit: Incidentally - seems like an area where AI could be very helpful too. Except for the hallucination risk - so obviously needs a lot of experimentation to work out how to use it safely. But analysing vast amounts of data (whether videos, images, text or whatever) seems like a perfect point where it could help journalism (with human oversight).
Quote from: Razgovory on October 18, 2023, 10:12:25 AMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 18, 2023, 09:18:25 AMIn related news, but I'm sure one of resident Frenchman will deal with it more extensively in the French politics thread (assuming we have one): apparently Nupes just imploded be melenchon likes Hamas too much
Huh?
Surprise, surprise, Mélenchon's islamo-leftists, most of LFI but for Ruffin, refuse to condemn clearly Hamas, so the communists, socialists and greens are more than tempted to found a new alliance.
Not to mention that Mélenchon has authoritarian tendencies.
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20231018-french-left-wing-alliance-on-brink-of-collapse-over-middle-east-conflict-row (https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20231018-french-left-wing-alliance-on-brink-of-collapse-over-middle-east-conflict-row)
https://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,16371.510.html (https://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,16371.510.html)
Quote from: Jacob on October 18, 2023, 10:41:51 AMIt seems to me that Hamas / anti-Israel groups have much better capabilities in the information warfare space than Israel. Were I in charge of Israeli strategic planning, I'd consider investing resources there.
In a propaganda war, the side that has no concern for truth or credibility always has a short-term tactical advantage over the side that cares more about its credibility and reputation for accuracy and will represent only what it thinks it can plausibly verify.
The message OUR EMEMY IS KILLERZ is always going to drown out the message of let's withhold judgment till the facts are known.
Quote from: Jacob on October 18, 2023, 10:41:51 AMTwo thoughts on the Hospital story:
1) I am glad that the hospital was not blown up. I hope it continues to not be blown up.
2) There seemed to be an concerted (and effective) social media push on the "Israel cruelly and deliberately targeted the hospital and hundreds are dead," with little effort to counter it. It seems to me that Hamas / anti-Israel groups have much better capabilities in the information warfare space than Israel. Were I in charge of Israeli strategic planning, I'd consider investing resources there.
Israelis have the significant disadvantage of being Jews.
I mean seriously. Were have been the global Muslim outrage and protests over China's handling of the Uygurs? Or the Left organising protests over the plight of Armenians? Or the whole clusterfuck in Sudan? No, things only seem to go over people's interest treshold when the Jews are involved.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 18, 2023, 10:09:20 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 18, 2023, 09:13:17 AMBut I'm not speaking to millions of people like the BBC, NYT, or other media that ran really heavy with the "IDF kills 500+" narrative. In fact even on the forums I post on I was taking the position of "well let's see", which apparently was more reticence than a lot of the Western media had.
Interesting thread from John Burn-Murdoch on part of this issue here:
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1714648538746118265
TLDR many big news organisations don't have OSINT or data teams (though some do) despite the fact that this is a key part of journalism in the modern world. I'd add, crucially, that it's also the information that the public will often find easily accessible online/being shared on social media so the media's role in explaining and interpreting is really key. Even when organisations have those teams they are treated warily as they're often younger and have skills /backgrounds that is very different from more "traditional" journalists so they're not as relied on/used as they could be in an emerging situation. Again I think getting comfortable with explaining uncertainty is really important (and perhaps even more important) when a situation is moving quickly and very unclear.
So when you're in a situation like this which is rapidly developing, fog of war etc - the fall back is correspondents reporting what a "source" or a "spokesman" has said and providing commentary on videos circulating on social media. Most media organisations either don't have the team to really guide them, or don't trust them enough to favour their run (which is also less definitive and likely more slow) over a prominent reporter's sources.
As I say I think this is part of a wider social shift where we are swimming in information and increasingly the old media standbys of "someone told me", vox pops with witnesses etc needs to be supplemented with more prominent analysis of all that information. Especially because the raw information is so often available to us all on social media which causes us to doubt the traditional media's stories.
I'd add that aside from any of this the BBC reporter saying live that it was hard to see what it could be except for an Israeli bomb because of the size etc was just a general editorial clusterfuck. There's places and times when reporters should be invited to speculate. Breaking news, without confirmed facts that's clearly very significant isn't that time.
That said: you don't need osint to know that when Hamas, russia today or radio Tokyo say something it's probably a lie. That should be how-to-deal-with-propaganda-101
I mentioned this guy's BBC appearance earlier, but here is an article covering it:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67140250
My take is this guy should be considered a "Hamas asset", dude was straight lying his ass off:
QuoteZaher Kuhail, a British-Palestinian civil engineering consultant and university professor who was nearby at the time, told the BBC that what he had witnessed was "beyond imagination".
"I [saw] two rockets coming from an F-16 or an F-35 [fighter jet], shelling these people and killing them ruthlessly, without any mercy," he said.
This Hamas plant is in Gaza now, but we can assume he is going back to Britain at some point.
Quote from: Jacob on October 18, 2023, 10:41:51 AMTwo thoughts on the Hospital story:
1) I am glad that the hospital was not blown up. I hope it continues to not be blown up.
2) There seemed to be an concerted (and effective) social media push on the "Israel cruelly and deliberately targeted the hospital and hundreds are dead," with little effort to counter it. It seems to me that Hamas / anti-Israel groups have much better capabilities in the information warfare space than Israel. Were I in charge of Israeli strategic planning, I'd consider investing resources there.
Seemed? From what I see on Twitter, it's still going on. I'm still seeing several people retweeting the "Israel destroyed a hospital and killed over 500 people" story as the unvarnished truth. Traditional media has walked the original headlines back, but the social media campaign has just shifted to calling the revisions lies.
I don't know what effect this is having on those who aren't firmly on one side or the other, but it looks like an uphill battle for Israel to combat this. It seems like so many people want to believe Israel is evil that they'll overwhelm social media just on sheer volume.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 18, 2023, 10:42:38 AMEdit: Incidentally - seems like an area where AI could be very helpful too. Except for the hallucination risk - so obviously needs a lot of experimentation to work out how to use it safely. But analysing vast amounts of data (whether videos, images, text or whatever) seems like a perfect point where it could help journalism (with human oversight).
I'm biased, due to my current employment, but there are ways to leverage LLMs here that avoid the hallucination problem, and even get sources for the things the model says. The problem is it requires a lot of data engineering work to ingest the data in a way the model can operate on, build appropriate prompts to guide its research, and potentially build tooling for the model to use in its analysis. This is something a government or large NGO could do (and I'm sure governments already are), but this is unfortunately
way outside the expertise or budget of a news organization (except, perhaps, Bloomberg, but they wouldn't be motivated to tackle the problem outside of the financial world).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 18, 2023, 10:50:39 AMIn a propaganda war, the side that has no concern for truth or credibility always has a short-term tactical advantage over the side that cares more about its credibility and reputation for accuracy and will represent only what it thinks it can plausibly verify.
The message OUR EMEMY IS KILLERZ is always going to drown out the message of let's withhold judgment till the facts are known.
Certainly it's a feature of the operational landscape - as is the influence of anti-semitism - that factors into the options available. Perhaps Israel is doing the best possible it can under the circumstances, or maybe there's room for improvement.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 18, 2023, 10:42:38 AMI totally agree, but that trad journalism is very new for newsrooms because some will be the old school reporting of speaking to sources and spokespeople and witnesses, but another strand wll be interpreting and analysing the flood of information.
And I think it requires a different approach to an extent. In the same way as "our man in x" or correspondent reporting is based on the trust and assumption that they're speaking to people, seeing things or, in fact, have sources in the areas they're talking about. I don't think we are sophisticated enough in how we interpret all the information that's available or to take it on trust (and maybe we'll get there) - so it requires interpretation but also explanation. Particularly around the OSINT stuff which I do not understand at all.
The other thing is that I think that lots of media organisations have those teams for big investigations. A long, detailed analysis of what satellite imagery tells us about the camps in Xinjiang or the results of sifting through terabytes of data from a leak. Those are multi-month, big projects - I think big media organisations maybe need almost a standing data and visual analysis team that is called for breaking news too. Just like, in the traditional model, the correspondent in DC or Jerusalem would be feeding in reporting (and, in the modern world, expected to contribute to liveblogs or pieces to cam). I think it's a genuinely new type of journalism and is still perhaps a little siloed.
Edit: Incidentally - seems like an area where AI could be very helpful too. Except for the hallucination risk - so obviously needs a lot of experimentation to work out how to use it safely. But analysing vast amounts of data (whether videos, images, text or whatever) seems like a perfect point where it could help journalism (with human oversight).
That is a very good point. As I pointed out earlier, the CBC reported the claim that Israel had shelled people travelling South on a protected route. It became obvious that the CBC reporter "on the ground" had simply been repeating a report without first determining its validity. The CBC withdrew the report. But did not take any steps to make it clear that their earlier report was withdrawn because it could not be confirmed.
I disagree with your point about AI - that is exactly where things could go badly awry - we have bad enough decisions to publish quickly based on flawed assumptions. We don't need to pile on to the errors with further flawed assumptions built into the programming of the AI. Can AI be used to detect fabrications - certainly. But I doubt its use would end there, and particularly in what appears to be a rush to publish before verification.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 18, 2023, 11:52:00 AMQuote from: Jacob on October 18, 2023, 10:41:51 AMTwo thoughts on the Hospital story:
1) I am glad that the hospital was not blown up. I hope it continues to not be blown up.
2) There seemed to be an concerted (and effective) social media push on the "Israel cruelly and deliberately targeted the hospital and hundreds are dead," with little effort to counter it. It seems to me that Hamas / anti-Israel groups have much better capabilities in the information warfare space than Israel. Were I in charge of Israeli strategic planning, I'd consider investing resources there.
Seemed? From what I see on Twitter, it's still going on. I'm still seeing several people retweeting the "Israel destroyed a hospital and killed over 500 people" story as the unvarnished truth. Traditional media has walked the original headlines back, but the social media campaign has just shifted to calling the revisions lies.
I don't know what effect this is having on those who aren't firmly on one side or the other, but it looks like an uphill battle for Israel to combat this. It seems like so many people want to believe Israel is evil that they'll overwhelm social media just on sheer volume.
Not just on Twitter, the Globe and Mail still has that story on its "front page" of its website.
I don't think there are many not directly affected who are on one side or the other. But I do think there are a lot of people concerned about the welfare of Palestinian civilians and who fully denounce HAMAS who will be swayed by this type of reporting.
Quote from: Tamas on October 18, 2023, 11:12:42 AMQuote from: Jacob on October 18, 2023, 10:41:51 AMTwo thoughts on the Hospital story:
1) I am glad that the hospital was not blown up. I hope it continues to not be blown up.
2) There seemed to be an concerted (and effective) social media push on the "Israel cruelly and deliberately targeted the hospital and hundreds are dead," with little effort to counter it. It seems to me that Hamas / anti-Israel groups have much better capabilities in the information warfare space than Israel. Were I in charge of Israeli strategic planning, I'd consider investing resources there.
Israelis have the significant disadvantage of being Jews.
I mean seriously. Were have been the global Muslim outrage and protests over China's handling of the Uygurs? Or the Left organising protests over the plight of Armenians? Or the whole clusterfuck in Sudan? No, things only seem to go over people's interest treshold when the Jews are involved.
It also just might have something to do with the fact that the neighboring Muslim nations have fought a few wars with Israel over this very issue.
Quote from: Tamas on October 18, 2023, 11:12:42 AMQuote from: Jacob on October 18, 2023, 10:41:51 AMTwo thoughts on the Hospital story:
1) I am glad that the hospital was not blown up. I hope it continues to not be blown up.
2) There seemed to be an concerted (and effective) social media push on the "Israel cruelly and deliberately targeted the hospital and hundreds are dead," with little effort to counter it. It seems to me that Hamas / anti-Israel groups have much better capabilities in the information warfare space than Israel. Were I in charge of Israeli strategic planning, I'd consider investing resources there.
Israelis have the significant disadvantage of being Jews.
I mean seriously. Were have been the global Muslim outrage and protests over China's handling of the Uygurs? Or the Left organising protests over the plight of Armenians? Or the whole clusterfuck in Sudan? No, things only seem to go over people's interest treshold when the Jews are involved.
Don't be daft.
Rather than being Jewish it's rather more being nearby and being democratic which is Israels problem.
The uighurs are far away and reporting ruthlessly suppressed. Azerbaijan too has been very strict on letting cameras in to see it's ethnic cleansing.
Plus the Palestinian issue has history. There's an ongoing investment there, support has been built over decades.
Events in Israel have had a huge impact on politics in the west - the oil crisis of the 70s and the subsequent take over of neo liberalism for instance.
Also an issue far more than anything Jewish related is the American link. This draws a lot of attention.
Anti semitism with Israel grows out of the shit israel pulls in the area. It's not the reason people criticise Israel for it.
I thought Israel was supposed to be Fascist, not democratic.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 18, 2023, 04:15:21 PMI thought Israel was supposed to be Fascist, not democratic.
Then you obviously haven't been reading what professor Byers has to say, since his thesis is based on the fact that Israel is a democratic state.
The Progressives Who Flunked the Hamas Test
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/hamas-pop-intersectionality-leftism-israel/675625/
QuoteThe terror attack on Israel by Hamas has been a divisive—if clarifying—moment for the left. The test that it presented was simple: Can you condemn the slaughter of civilians, in massacres that now appear to have been calculatedly sadistic and outrageous, without equivocation or whataboutism? Can you lay down, for a moment, your legitimate criticisms of Benjamin Netanyahu's government, West Bank settlements, and the conditions in Gaza, and express horror at the mass murder of civilians?
In corners of academia and social-justice activism where the identity of the oppressor and the oppressed are never in doubt, many people failed that test. In response to a fellow progressive who argued that targeting civilians is always wrong, the Yale professor Zareena Grewal replied: "Settlers are not civilians. This is not hard." (She has since locked her X account.) Chicago's Black Lives Matter chapter posted a picture of a paraglider, referencing the gunmen who descended on civilians at a music festival near the Gaza border from the air. (The chapter said in a statement that "we aren't proud" of the post, which was later deleted.) Harvard student groups posted a letter stating that its signatories "hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence." (Several of the named groups have since withdrawn their endorsement.)
The New York branch of the Democratic Socialists of America promoted a rally where protesters chanted "resistance is justified when people are occupied" and one participant displayed a swastika. These actions prompted criticism by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, perhaps the DSA's most prominent figure, and the resignation of members including the comedian Sarah Silverman. In a statement, the New York City Democratic Socialists regretted the "confusion" that its rhetoric had caused, but added: "We are also concerned that some have chosen to focus on a rally while ignoring the root causes of violence in the region, the far-right Netanyahu government's escalating human rights violations and explicitly genocidal rhetoric, and the dehumanization of the Palestinian people."
In the United Kingdom, where I live, a journalist for the hard-left outlet Novara, Rivkah Brown, tweeted that "the struggle for freedom is rarely bloodless and we shouldn't apologise for it." (She has since deleted the post, saying she responded "too quickly and in a moment of heightened emotion.") Ellie Gomersall, the president of the National Union of Students in Scotland, apologized for reposting content justifying Hamas's actions. Two days earlier, Gomersall had accused the British Labour Party leader Keir Starmer of being "complicit in the deaths of ... trans people" for saying that "a woman is a female adult." Got that? A politician with an essentialist view of womanhood is complicit in the deaths of innocents, but a terrorist indiscriminately murdering people at a music festival must be understood in context.
In the fevered world of social media, progressive activists have often sought to discredit hateful statements and unjust policies by describing them as "violence," even "genocide." This tendency seems grotesque if the same activists are not prepared to criticize Hamas, a group whose founding charter is explicitly genocidal: "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees."
Many of those making inflammatory statements come from what's sometimes known as the "intersectional left." This tendency is strongly influenced by the academic disciplines of queer theory and critical race theory, and by the postcolonial idea of the "subaltern," or marginalized class. Like woke, intersectionality has become a boo-word for the right—but unlike woke, it is a label that some activists proudly embrace, particularly academics and young feminists.
I will go to my grave defending the original conception of intersectionality, a legal doctrine advanced by the American critical race theorist Kimberlé Crenshaw. She made the useful observation that civil-rights legislation has usually treated protected characteristics such as sex and race as discrete, when in fact they are often interlinked. One of her examples was a St. Louis car plant that, for many years, hired white women and Black men but never Black women. Even after management stopped discriminating, Black women always ranked low on the seniority list and therefore were especially vulnerable to layoffs. Yet how could they sue when they were not subject to racism or sexism per se, but an intersection of the two?
However, Crenshaw herself has expressed surprise at how the meaning of intersectionality has changed through its invocation in pop culture. "This is what happens when an idea travels beyond the context and the content," she told Vox in 2019. In escaping from the academy into the mainstream, intersectionality morphed into both a crude tallying of oppression points and an assumption that social-justice struggles fit neatly together—with all of the marginalized people on one side and the powerful on the other.
That's how you end up with Queers for Palestine when being queer in Palestine is difficult and dangerous. (In 2016, a Hamas commander was executed after being accused of theft and gay sex.) It's also how you end up with candidates for Labour Party leadership signing a pledge that insists there "is no material conflict between trans rights and women's rights," even when—as in the eligibility rules for women's sports—some wins for one group plainly come at the expense of the other. The pop version of intersectionality cannot deal with the complexity of real human life, where we can all be, in Jean-Paul Sartre's phrase, "half-victims, half-accomplices, like everyone else." In fact, you can support the Palestinian cause without excusing acts of terrorism committed by Hamas. You can question Israel's military response without excusing acts of terrorism committed by Hamas. In fact, maintaining the principle that targeting civilians is wrong gives you the moral authority to criticize any Israeli response that creates a humanitarian crisis.
Fitting Israel into the intersectional framework has always been difficult, because its Jewish citizens are both historically oppressed—the survivors of an attempt to wipe them out entirely—and currently in a dominant position over the Palestinians, as demonstrated by the Netanyahu government's decision to restrict power and water supplies to Gaza. The simplistic logic of pop intersectionality cannot reconcile this, and the subject caused schisms within the left long before Saturday's attacks. In 2017, Linda Sarsour, one of the organizers of the Women's March, told The Nation that Zionism and feminism were incompatible: "It just doesn't make any sense for someone to say, 'Is there room for people who support the state of Israel and do not criticize it in the movement?' There can't be in feminism." In January 2018, several pro-Palestinian groups boycotted a Women's March because it featured the actor Scarlett Johansson, who once made an ad for an Israeli company that has a factory in the West Bank. On the other side, Jewish groups condemned three of the Women's March organizers, including Sarsour, for associating with the openly anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.
The leftist belief in the righteousness of "punching up," a derivation of standpoint theory, is also important here. Again, this idea has mutated from the reasonable observation that different groups have different knowledge based on their experience—I have never experienced being pulled over by a traffic cop as a Black man, and that limits my understanding of the police—to the idea that different rules apply to you depending on your social position. When an oppressed group uses violence against the oppressor, that is justified "resistance." Many of us accept a mild version of this proposition: The British suffragettes turned to window smashing and bombing after deciding that letter writing and marches were useless, and history now remembers them as heroines. But somehow, in the case of the incursion from Gaza into Israel, the idea of "punching up" was extended to the murder of children. I simply cannot comprehend how any self-proclaimed feminist can watch footage of armed militants manhandling a woman whose pants are soaked with what looks like blood and decide that she has the power in that situation—and deserves her fate.
The sheer number of apologies and climbdowns that followed the initial wave of inflammatory posts suggests that some of their authors issued knee-jerk statements of solidarity before they understood exactly what they were endorsing. As the full extent of the weekend's barbarity becomes clear, some on the intersectional left are—to their small credit—revising their initial reactions. But others are doubling down. Confronted with real violence by genocidal terrorists, they failed the test.
Yes, it is entirely possible to condemn the slaughter carried out by HAMAS and be concerned for the well-being of Palestinian civilians
Who do you think he's taking a different position. Has there been anybody here who has said that the attack by HAMAS was in anyway justified?
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 18, 2023, 07:03:19 AMI accept your apologies now.
What would you like me to apologize for?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 18, 2023, 11:51:30 AMI mentioned this guy's BBC appearance earlier, but here is an article covering it:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67140250
My take is this guy should be considered a "Hamas asset", dude was straight lying his ass off:
QuoteZaher Kuhail, a British-Palestinian civil engineering consultant and university professor who was nearby at the time, told the BBC that what he had witnessed was "beyond imagination".
"I [saw] two rockets coming from an F-16 or an F-35 [fighter jet], shelling these people and killing them ruthlessly, without any mercy," he said.
This Hamas plant is in Gaza now, but we can assume he is going back to Britain at some point.
Yes, another witness, inside the hospital, said he heard the distinctive whine of 2 missiles and then the roof collapsed.
Le Parisien reports from credible sources that one missile hit the parking and the hospital had been mostly evacuated before the strike. There's between 10 and 50 victims at most and the Islamic Djihad missile malfunction is the most credible thesis.
Hamas is attempting to inflame other Arab countries into declaring holy war against Israel. So far, it's successful in provoking riots at least. And its narrative is proving popular, no matter the facts.
Netanyahu really fucked up this one. He really managed to rally all the Arabs against him by essentially doing nothing against the Hamas and again targeting the wrong enemy. It seems a constant in Israel history since the beginning of Hamas.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2023, 11:29:40 AMProfessor Byers as now written an opinion piece for the Globe and Mail
Quote(snip)
The second clearly violated rule is the prohibition on forcible transfers within or from an occupied territory, for instance, from Gaza City to southern Gaza. An alleged violation of this rule is the basis of the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier this year.
Israeli lawyers will point out that there is an exception to the rule, namely that transfers may occur "if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand." But even then, the transferring power "shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated."
Clearly, those responsibilities are not being fulfilled in southern Gaza today.
Still catching up on the discussion, but I am flabbergasted that an "expert" on international humanitarian law would so blatantly mis-state the law and what is happening.
International humanitarian law prohibits the mass movement of occupied people by the occupying power:
QuoteArticle 49 (relevant portion)
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
GCIV (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949)
Note that this is a prohibition of action by an "Occupying Power."
Israel is not forcibly transferring anyone in Gaza. I don't know why the professor would think that they are.
Further, Israel is not an occupying power. Hague Convention 4 is still the defining document in occupation law, and state that
QuoteArt. 42.
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
Hague 4 (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp)
For Israel in Gaza, this occupied territory is non-existent, so Israel cannot be violation this element of the rules of armed conflict.
While I agree with the prof on the collective punishment issue, this clearly is not an "expert" on which we should rely for authoritative statements about the situation in Gaza.
Byers may be an expert, but he is first and foremost a political activist with a leftist agenda. He is not to be taken seriously at all and it's not worth the effort to debunk him.
Quote from: Jacob on October 18, 2023, 12:14:09 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on October 18, 2023, 10:50:39 AMIn a propaganda war, the side that has no concern for truth or credibility always has a short-term tactical advantage over the side that cares more about its credibility and reputation for accuracy and will represent only what it thinks it can plausibly verify.
The message OUR EMEMY IS KILLERZ is always going to drown out the message of let's withhold judgment till the facts are known.
Certainly it's a feature of the operational landscape - as is the influence of anti-semitism - that factors into the options available. Perhaps Israel is doing the best possible it can under the circumstances, or maybe there's room for improvement.
This feels like a strange line of discussion. Lies your enemy has spread whip up a frenzy on social media and traditional media loves to eat from that trough...well you should have better social media game.
OK...:huh:
Quote from: garbon on October 19, 2023, 01:50:35 AMQuote from: Jacob on October 18, 2023, 12:14:09 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on October 18, 2023, 10:50:39 AMIn a propaganda war, the side that has no concern for truth or credibility always has a short-term tactical advantage over the side that cares more about its credibility and reputation for accuracy and will represent only what it thinks it can plausibly verify.
The message OUR EMEMY IS KILLERZ is always going to drown out the message of let's withhold judgment till the facts are known.
Certainly it's a feature of the operational landscape - as is the influence of anti-semitism - that factors into the options available. Perhaps Israel is doing the best possible it can under the circumstances, or maybe there's room for improvement.
This feels like a strange line of discussion. Lies your enemy has spread whip up a frenzy on social media and traditional media loves to eat from that trough...well you should have better social media game.
OK...:huh:
I wrote something, but then I realized that I don't know exactly what you mean. What exactly do you mean?
It sounds to me like he's assigning some liability to Israel for the Arab's streets response to the fake Gaza hospital news.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 19, 2023, 02:59:22 AMIt sounds to me like he's assigning some liability to Israel for the Arab's streets response to the fake Gaza hospital news.
That's what it feels like Jacob is doing, yes.
Your enemies will always try to hurt you. The only thing you control directly is your own actions.
Quote from: The Brain on October 19, 2023, 03:20:11 AMYour enemies will always try to hurt you. The only thing you control directly is your own actions.
To be clear, I don't think that first sentence of mine. I should have maybe put scare quotes on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THV_OuzC9jM
Ret US Gen talks about evidence of hospital hit.
It's not usual Israeli MO to deny something so vehemently. They wouldn't shoot at the hospital on purpose, so if they did hit it, it would be accidental, in which case their usual response would be to say "we are launching an investigation to determine what happened."
On the other hand, Hamas WOULD do this on purpose, although I don't think thats what happened. I think they launched a rocket from the hospital parking lot (a typical thing for them to hide behind hospitals, schools, etc.) that misfired and came back down. They immediately thought this would be good PR if we blame it on the Israelis. By the time the truth comes out, people would only remember the initial headlines.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2023, 08:16:19 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2023, 11:29:40 AMProfessor Byers as now written an opinion piece for the Globe and Mail
Quote(snip)
The second clearly violated rule is the prohibition on forcible transfers within or from an occupied territory, for instance, from Gaza City to southern Gaza. An alleged violation of this rule is the basis of the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier this year.
Israeli lawyers will point out that there is an exception to the rule, namely that transfers may occur "if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand." But even then, the transferring power "shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated."
Clearly, those responsibilities are not being fulfilled in southern Gaza today.
Still catching up on the discussion, but I am flabbergasted that an "expert" on international humanitarian law would so blatantly mis-state the law and what is happening.
International humanitarian law prohibits the mass movement of occupied people by the occupying power:
QuoteArticle 49 (relevant portion)
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
GCIV (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949)
Note that this is a prohibition of action by an "Occupying Power."
Israel is not forcibly transferring anyone in Gaza. I don't know why the professor would think that they are.
Further, Israel is not an occupying power. Hague Convention 4 is still the defining document in occupation law, and state that
QuoteArt. 42.
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
Hague 4 (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp)
For Israel in Gaza, this occupied territory is non-existent, so Israel cannot be violation this element of the rules of armed conflict.
While I agree with the prof on the collective punishment issue, this clearly is not an "expert" on which we should rely for authoritative statements about the situation in Gaza.
I will think about the points you raised but initially I'd like to know why you put the word expert in quotation marks.
I can't speak for grumbler, but when lawyers or law professors speak about the law, they can do so objectively and descriptively, or they can do so as advocates for a client or a particular point of view. The line is not always strictly well-defined but it is definitely there.
[Story for the non-lawyers: in my big firm days I once supervised a litigation associate who was very bright and a competent writer. But her draft briefs always required lots of revision because she was incapable of advocacy. She would just state what she believed the stronger legal position was based on existing precedent, even if that result was bad for our client. She couldn't wrap her head around the sophistical role of lawyers in the US adversarial system that sometimes you need to make the weaker argument try to sound like the stronger one. Eventually, she left the litigation department for a counseling role, where she succeeded and eventually made partner.]
The objection to Byers is that he is representing himself as presenting the law as it is (descriptively), in the role an objective expert. But in reality is presenting a particular desired interpretation of the law aspirationally, as an advocate. He is representing his personal view of what he wants international law to be and how it should be applied as it were a neutral description of what international is.
Yeah, to me it seems akin to Alan Dershowitz, he is a controversial figure, but a lawyer of many years of expertise who has been involved in a lot of prominent cases. It wouldn't be invalid to cite him as a legal expert. But when he is on Fox News advocating for one of his specific clients, his arguments are far more likely going to be advocacy than they are neutral expressions of expertise. Most lawyers when representing a client don't go out and explain ways their client's legal position is defective. Instead they tend to craft a narrative where their client is entirely in the right.
From a fellow at RUSI, which I totally agree with, Israel appears far weaker and more dysfunctional than I'd expected. It has the firepower but it feels like the political issues in recent years may have also bled into security.
The attack was almost two weeks ago and I'm still not any clearer on what Israel is intending to achieve and I find it very surprising. It's not clear what they want or how they intend to get there. The military may have, as you'd expect, a menu of contingency plans ready and the issue is political but I'm not sure if even that is the case. It feels like there's just no consensus view politically or militarily on what to do, how to do it and what the follow on risks might be so there's bombs but it feels almost like a displacement activity with a sense of paralysis honestly.
It could be, as I wondered earlier, lots of preparation for entering territory they know will be very difficult. But it doesn't feel like preparatory stages. It feels like the Israeli state still doesn't know what it intends to do, which I'm really surprised by. I think that is a risk particularly if this moves to three fronts because I think Hezbollah will be watching this closely and the West Bank could explode into protests.
I've known about and read stuff about the political issues in Israel and I obviously disagree with Netanyahu - and think as a politician he is purely interested in his own position and advancement - but I am surprised. I thought the security state was separate (and this could all be wrong, they may have been planning an incredibly effective operation to launch this evening), but maybe it wasn't?
Don't underestimate the extent that Netanyahu's corrupt power grabbing has led to institutional decay. Look at what he tried to do to the legal system.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 19, 2023, 09:01:51 AMI can't speak for grumbler, but when lawyers or law professors speak about the law, they can do so objectively and descriptively, or they can do so as advocates for a client or a particular point of view. The line is not always strictly well-defined but it is definitely there.
[Story for the non-lawyers: in my big firm days I once supervised a litigation associate who was very bright and a competent writer. But her draft briefs always required lots of revision because she was incapable of advocacy. She would just state what she believed the stronger legal position was based on existing precedent, even if that result was bad for our client. She couldn't wrap her head around the sophistical role of lawyers in the US adversarial system that sometimes you need to make the weaker argument try to sound like the stronger one. Eventually, she left the litigation department for a counseling role, where she succeeded and eventually made partner.]
The objection to Byers is that he is representing himself as presenting the law as it is (descriptively), in the role an objective expert. But in reality is presenting a particular desired interpretation of the law aspirationally, as an advocate. He is representing his personal view of what he wants international law to be and how it should be applied as it were a neutral description of what international is.
I think you are conflating what an expert witness is in court proceeding (and advocacy in a court proceeding for that matter) with an expert in an area who is trying to educate the public. That latter role is very different from the former.
It is clear that Professor Byers a leading academic in his field. I don't think there is anything wrong with disagreeing with the points he makes. That makes for an interesting discussion and is at the heart of what academic inquiry is all about. But it is curious that someone would question that he knows his area.
There's, apparently, a 1500 Israeli volunteer army of tech workers trying to geolocate the hostages thru social media and other internet sources. Such is the decay of institutions under populists.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 19, 2023, 09:51:23 AMFrom a fellow at RUSI, which I totally agree with, Israel appears far weaker and more dysfunctional than I'd expected. It has the firepower but it feels like the political issues in recent years may have also bled into security.
The attack was almost two weeks ago and I'm still not any clearer on what Israel is intending to achieve and I find it very surprising. It's not clear what they want or how they intend to get there. The military may have, as you'd expect, a menu of contingency plans ready and the issue is political but I'm not sure if even that is the case. It feels like there's just no consensus view politically or militarily on what to do, how to do it and what the follow on risks might be so there's bombs but it feels almost like a displacement activity with a sense of paralysis honestly.
It could be, as I wondered earlier, lots of preparation for entering territory they know will be very difficult. But it doesn't feel like preparatory stages. It feels like the Israeli state still doesn't know what it intends to do, which I'm really surprised by. I think that is a risk particularly if this moves to three fronts because I think Hezbollah will be watching this closely and the West Bank could explode into protests.
I've known about and read stuff about the political issues in Israel and I obviously disagree with Netanyahu - and think as a politician he is purely interested in his own position and advancement - but I am surprised. I thought the security state was separate (and this could all be wrong, they may have been planning an incredibly effective operation to launch this evening), but maybe it wasn't?
My main issue with this analysis is we aren't really privy to the information. For all we know Israel has a plan of invasion and occupation worked up, but they haven't communicated it at all. There is a lot of smoke and mirrors.
I don't necessarily disagree with the thesis, I just don't see that we have enough access to the deliberations and planning to reasonably know.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 19, 2023, 09:58:47 AMI think you are conflating what an expert witness is in court proceeding (and advocacy in a court proceeding for that matter) with an expert in an area who is trying to educate the public. That latter role is very different from the former.
I'm not conflating those roles, I am accusing Pf. Byers of doing so in those statements. The basis of that accusation is statements such the claim that cutting of outside supplies of electricity to a besieged city violates international law; that has no support in existing international legal sources and practices, but rather represents Byers' aspirational desire to extend the existing law and practice to impose greater restrictions on belligerents.
Except that I'm doing more than that. Even a retained party expert is usually more careful to accurately represent controlling understandings within the relevant area of expertise as opposed to minority views or views that lack general acceptance in the field but that the expert believes has merit. I wouldn't analogize what Byers is doing to that of a retained party expert but rather a lawyer for a party advocating a desired position for a client.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 19, 2023, 09:51:23 AMFrom a fellow at RUSI, which I totally agree with, Israel appears far weaker and more dysfunctional than I'd expected. It has the firepower but it feels like the political issues in recent years may have also bled into security.
The attack was almost two weeks ago and I'm still not any clearer on what Israel is intending to achieve and I find it very surprising. It's not clear what they want or how they intend to get there. The military may have, as you'd expect, a menu of contingency plans ready and the issue is political but I'm not sure if even that is the case. It feels like there's just no consensus view politically or militarily on what to do, how to do it and what the follow on risks might be so there's bombs but it feels almost like a displacement activity with a sense of paralysis honestly.
Israel hasn't known what to do with the Gaza Strip for 30 years, an attack from there doesn't change this.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 19, 2023, 10:02:13 AMMy main issue with this analysis is we aren't really privy to the information. For all we know Israel has a plan of invasion and occupation worked up, but they haven't communicated it at all. There is a lot of smoke and mirrors.
I don't necessarily disagree with the thesis, I just don't see that we have enough access to the deliberations and planning to reasonably know.
Totally agree - and it may well clearly be total nonsense in a day or two. But I think it's fair to say this is how it appears (and it may just be deception). Obviously it also reflects that it doesn't seem like there are any "good" options.
I think it matters for Israel - deterrence is very important and part of that isn't just Israeli tech and weapons systems, but also military brilliance and decisiveness.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 19, 2023, 09:51:23 AMFrom a fellow at RUSI, which I totally agree with, Israel appears far weaker and more dysfunctional than I'd expected. It has the firepower but it feels like the political issues in recent years may have also bled into security.
The attack was almost two weeks ago and I'm still not any clearer on what Israel is intending to achieve and I find it very surprising. It's not clear what they want or how they intend to get there. The military may have, as you'd expect, a menu of contingency plans ready and the issue is political but I'm not sure if even that is the case. It feels like there's just no consensus view politically or militarily on what to do, how to do it and what the follow on risks might be so there's bombs but it feels almost like a displacement activity with a sense of paralysis honestly.
It could be, as I wondered earlier, lots of preparation for entering territory they know will be very difficult. But it doesn't feel like preparatory stages. It feels like the Israeli state still doesn't know what it intends to do, which I'm really surprised by. I think that is a risk particularly if this moves to three fronts because I think Hezbollah will be watching this closely and the West Bank could explode into protests.
I've known about and read stuff about the political issues in Israel and I obviously disagree with Netanyahu - and think as a politician he is purely interested in his own position and advancement - but I am surprised. I thought the security state was separate (and this could all be wrong, they may have been planning an incredibly effective operation to launch this evening), but maybe it wasn't?
As I said before, I'm pretty sure they're trying to determine where the hostages are before going in willy-nilly. If there is a chance they can be rescued before they rain hellfire on Gaza, they will try to do that. Also giving a bit more chance for Palestinians to evacuate the north.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 19, 2023, 10:07:41 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 19, 2023, 09:58:47 AMI think you are conflating what an expert witness is in court proceeding (and advocacy in a court proceeding for that matter) with an expert in an area who is trying to educate the public. That latter role is very different from the former.
I'm not conflating those roles, I am accusing Pf. Byers of doing so in those statements. The basis of that accusation is statements such the claim that cutting of outside supplies of electricity to a besieged city violates international law; that has no support in existing international legal sources and practices, but rather represents Byers' aspirational desire to extend the existing law and practice to impose greater restrictions on belligerents.
Except that I'm doing more than that. Even a retained party expert is usually more careful to accurately represent controlling understandings within the relevant area of expertise as opposed to minority views or views that lack general acceptance in the field but that the expert believes has merit. I wouldn't analogize what Byers is doing to that of a retained party expert but rather a lawyer for a party advocating a desired position for a client.
Perhaps address the whole of my post if we are to engage in a discussion rather than simply restating your position.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 19, 2023, 10:17:08 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 19, 2023, 10:02:13 AMMy main issue with this analysis is we aren't really privy to the information. For all we know Israel has a plan of invasion and occupation worked up, but they haven't communicated it at all. There is a lot of smoke and mirrors.
I don't necessarily disagree with the thesis, I just don't see that we have enough access to the deliberations and planning to reasonably know.
Totally agree - and it may well clearly be total nonsense in a day or two. But I think it's fair to say this is how it appears (and it may just be deception). Obviously it also reflects that it doesn't seem like there are any "good" options.
I think it matters for Israel - deterrence is very important and part of that isn't just Israeli tech and weapons systems, but also military brilliance and decisiveness.
I'm getting the impression that a ground offensive will begin soon, once all the Western leaders doing the rounds supporting Israel and getting support from Arab leaders for humanitarian stuff & containment have left the region.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 19, 2023, 10:45:24 AMPerhaps address the whole of my post if we are to engage in a discussion rather than simply restating your position.
FWIW to engage in the sort of discussion you do, I will restate your position for the observers:
"I have identified this expert as saying opinions I like, so I will consider any disagreement of those opinions to be wrong because he is an expert, and everything an expert says wins."
E.g. a pretty basic appeal to authority fallacy.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 19, 2023, 11:01:28 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 19, 2023, 10:45:24 AMPerhaps address the whole of my post if we are to engage in a discussion rather than simply restating your position.
FWIW to engage in the sort of discussion you do, I will restate your position for the observers:
"I have identified this expert as saying opinions I like, so I will consider any disagreement of those opinions to be wrong because he is an expert, and everything an expert says wins."
E.g. a pretty basic appeal to authority fallacy.
You say that despite me saying disagreeing with him is fine and part of the discussion. If you are not going to be honest about my position then please fuck off.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 19, 2023, 09:51:23 AMThe attack was almost two weeks ago and I'm still not any clearer on what Israel is intending to achieve and I find it very surprising. It's not clear what they want or how they intend to get there. The military may have, as you'd expect, a menu of contingency plans ready and the issue is political but I'm not sure if even that is the case. It feels like there's just no consensus view politically or militarily on what to do, how to do it and what the follow on risks might be so there's bombs but it feels almost like a displacement activity with a sense of paralysis honestly.
It could be, as I wondered earlier, lots of preparation for entering territory they know will be very difficult. But it doesn't feel like preparatory stages. It feels like the Israeli state still doesn't know what it intends to do, which I'm really surprised by. I think that is a risk particularly if this moves to three fronts because I think Hezbollah will be watching this closely and the West Bank could explode into protests.
It's a massive undertaking to move into Gaza. It'll take some time to sort out the logistics and prepare the way with airstrikes and artillery and Israel has to decide whether they preempt Hezbollah and strike first or hope they stay fairly quiet. :hmm:
Yeah, I mean U.S. planning for large invasions in modern times (say, Gulf War I and onwards) has usually taken months, not weeks.
Israel likely doesn't have the "initiative" politically and etc to last months of planning though, they likely need to start a ground invasion this month or I think there will be a lot of headwinds, both diplomatically and inside Israel's political system.
A bigger question than the planning IMO is the "what do we do long term." If the goal of the ground invasion is just punitive, e.g. hunt out Hamas leaders, make a half-hearted (but knowingly unlikely) attempt to find hostages etc, then it means the Israeli leadership has the flexibility of leaving "whenever they decide the getting is good" and can plausibly say goal achieved.
If they explicitly say they are going in to reshape the strip, permanently remove Hamas from power--they would almost definitionally require some form of extended occupation, and then if things get rough and they decide to leave, it will (politically) be seen as a significant failure of leadership I think, which for the political actors involved is likely as important, maybe more so, than anything else in this discussion.
If I had to guess I think Israel will go in, kill anything that resists and once that's achieved they'll have full physical control of all border crossings into the Sinai. So a much tighter vise on Gaza but no full-scale occupation. The aftermath will be Mosul on steroids.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 19, 2023, 09:01:51 AM[Story for the non-lawyers: in my big firm days I once supervised a litigation associate who was very bright and a competent writer. But her draft briefs always required lots of revision because she was incapable of advocacy. She would just state what she believed the stronger legal position was based on existing precedent, even if that result was bad for our client. She couldn't wrap her head around the sophistical role of lawyers in the US adversarial system that sometimes you need to make the weaker argument try to sound like the stronger one. Eventually, she left the litigation department for a counseling role, where she succeeded and eventually made partner.]
I know you say for non-lawyers, but prompted a memory.
Back during articling (the year's apprenticeship we Canuck law-talkers have to do before being called) I had to do a memo for a client who wanted to lift a restrictive covenant on a piece of property. My memo came back saying "you can't". Supervising lawyer was like "No, come back and give the best possible argument for why you can. Client just needs
something to use as leverage in trying to convince the other party to life the covenant"
That being said one of the nice things about being in prosecutions is we do have a quasi-judicial role, and are supposed to look out for the overall interests of justice, and not just nakedly argue for one side.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 19, 2023, 10:45:24 AMPerhaps address the whole of my post if we are to engage in a discussion rather than simply restating your position.
I read Byers as saying that Israel is falling short of his aspirational view of international law should be. So:
1. If the question is do I agree that international law should be more restrictive on permissible action by belligerents and more protective of civilians than it actually is at present, in a manner that Byers thinks it should be, then the answer is that I'm not sure. I have to think about it. In principle, I think more protection of civilians is a good thing and that there is still a lot of work to be done inculcating such protective values into national military forces. OTOH I also think it's problematic to try to impose restrictions on the actions of sovereign states that no state would reasonably abide by if it believed its national security or the security of its own forces were at significant risk. The current conflict gives much food for thought. When faced with an opponent that shows total contempt for the accepted rules of war, and who attempts to exploit their existence for miltiary advantage, how much freedom of action is it reasonable to give the other side? If the international law of war itself becomes a weapon in the tactical arsenal of those who are its worst violators, what is the likely impact on respect for that body of law?
2. If the question is whether it is appropriate to accuse Israel (or any other state) of violating international law, not because they actually are, but as a rhetorical device to give more impact to an argument for an aspirational view of a more protective international law, I disagree.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 19, 2023, 08:31:49 AMI will think about the points you raised but initially I'd like to know why you put the word expert in quotation marks.
Because he is not actually speaking as an expert here, he is just pretending to. No actual expert on the subject would hold Israel to be the Occupying Power in Gaza. Making statements meant to be taken as fact when they are not just opinions, but flat untruths, is not serving as an expert. Hence, "expert" in quotes.
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2023, 12:08:41 PMBack during articling (the year's apprenticeship we Canuck law-talkers have to do before being called) I had to do a memo for a client who wanted to lift a restrictive covenant on a piece of property. My memo came back saying "you can't". Supervising lawyer was like "No, come back and give the best possible argument for why you can. Client just needs something to use as leverage in trying to convince the other party to life the covenant"
Right that's typical for junior lawyers just out of school because clinics and competitions aside, most exam work in law schools involves giving one's best view of the law, not client advocacy. Most assocs work that out after a year or two, but a few never really get it.
Quote from: garbon on October 19, 2023, 01:50:35 AMThis feels like a strange line of discussion. Lies your enemy has spread whip up a frenzy on social media and traditional media loves to eat from that trough...well you should have better social media game.
OK...:huh:
If you thing my phrasing was indelicate that's fair enough.
That said, I think the Informational Warfare - i.e. the propaganda war - is a significant part of modern warfare. If you compare Ukrainian efforts and results in this realm to that of Israel then there's a significant difference. And yes of course the circumstances and particulars are vastly different.
I've seen very little that could be interpreted as Israeli attempts in that sphere, but I've come across plenty of things that seem like very effective massaging for Hamas and/ or Palestinians.
Anecdotally I've noted this absence. I'm basically 0% interested in assigning any kind of blame. I am, however, curious to see what - if anything - I've missed. And I'm interested in understanding why there appears to be little effort in this space.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 19, 2023, 02:59:22 AMIt sounds to me like he's assigning some liability to Israel for the Arab's streets response to the fake Gaza hospital news.
I'm not. I basically have no insight into "the Arab street" and how to influence it. I reckon it'd be a challenging operational environment for Isreal. I suppose if Israel had a strong informational warfare operation, they could spare some effort there as well. But it does not appear as if they do.
I'm basing my observations on the parts of the West I pay attention to - Canada, the US, the UK, Denmark - and like I said I haven't seen much that could be interpreted as Israeli supporting narratives (a few here and there), but I've seen plenty that could be interpreted as Palestinian supporting, and even Hamas supporting.
Quote from: The Brain on October 19, 2023, 03:20:11 AMYour enemies will always try to hurt you. The only thing you control directly is your own actions.
Exactly.
It's not like it's a wholly new concept for your enemy to lie brazenly, or to actively reframe facts to suit their narratives.
The Israel aligned response to those kind of actions by their enemies do not seem to be particularly on point. I'm curious why that is. Maybe they're doing the best they can but the odds are against them. Maybe they're under resouced in this area for any number of reasons (good or bad). Maybe they've decided it just doesn't matter (which I'd tend to disagree with, but obviously it's not my call).
I'm seeing reporting that the Israeli minister of defence say the land operation is going to start soon.
Israel is currently disadvantaged in that they're fighting a side that's aided by Russia. Russia may not be winning the PR war against Ukraine, but they're still formidable in that area and they have a lot of war experience. Israel is still at the Kasserine Pass level.
Quote from: Jacob on October 19, 2023, 02:38:05 PMIf you thing my phrasing was indelicate that's fair enough.
That said, I think the Informational Warfare - i.e. the propaganda war - is a significant part of modern warfare. If you compare Ukrainian efforts and results in this realm to that of Israel then there's a significant difference. And yes of course the circumstances and particulars are vastly different.
I've seen very little that could be interpreted as Israeli attempts in that sphere, but I've come across plenty of things that seem like very effective massaging for Hamas and/ or Palestinians.
Anecdotally I've noted this absence. I'm basically 0% interested in assigning any kind of blame. I am, however, curious to see what - if anything - I've missed. And I'm interested in understanding why there appears to be little effort in this space.
But how much of that is different from the norm? I mean every single previous war in Gaza (normally started by Hamas attacks) move very swiftly from sympathy with Israel to large demonstrations across the world condemning Israel and in solidarity with Palestinians.
I think this forum and the US are a little bit outliers in global opinion. I'm not sure it's information warfare or Hamas propaganda as much as it is the broad public opinion in large chunks of the world since 1967 - at the latest. A lot of what I see that is pushing this isn't Hamas or Palestinian propaganda but left-wing people online who have views. I've not seen anything from Hamas or Palestinians that seems like Ukraine's efforts.
I agree that I don't see much in the way of comms or efforts from Israel - but again I think I very rarely have in previous conflicts. I'm not sure how much of that is because Israel basically is entirely focused on American opinion which may not be the wrong approach. Or to possibly add to it on governments. I think Ukraine's need was bigger it was tied to its European ambitions and desire to integrate into the West. They needed to convince countries to spend money on them and supply them with arms, which is not a requirement for Israel - also they're the underdog in a way I don't think Israel is or has been perceived as for decades.
QuoteThe Israel aligned response to those kind of actions by their enemies do not seem to be particularly on point. I'm curious why that is. Maybe they're doing the best they can but the odds are against them. Maybe they're under resouced in this area for any number of reasons (good or bad). Maybe they've decided it just doesn't matter (which I'd tend to disagree with, but obviously it's not my call).
I honestly think that part of it may be that they don't care.
Edit: And again - they might not be wrong. There is an argument that basically opinion is pretty entrenched on Israel-Palestine, in all my time on the internet, say, I don't think I've seen a single person change their mind about it. So what matters is keeping the US and decision-makers onside (and willing to take some heat domestically). I think many people wouldn't even really have heard of Ukraine far less had an opinion on it - so there's more scope for opinion shaping.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 19, 2023, 03:46:31 PMBut how much of that is different from the norm? I mean every single previous war in Gaza (normally started by Hamas attacks) move very swiftly from sympathy with Israel to large demonstrations across the world condemning Israel and in solidarity with Palestinians.
I think this forum and the US are a little bit outliers in global opinion. I'm not sure it's information warfare or Hamas propaganda as much as it is the broad public opinion in large chunks of the world since 1967 - at the latest. A lot of what I see that is pushing this isn't Hamas or Palestinian propaganda but left-wing people online who have views. I've not seen anything from Hamas or Palestinians that seems like Ukraine's efforts.
I agree that I don't see much in the way of comms or efforts from Israel - but again I think I very rarely have in previous conflicts. I'm not sure how much of that is because Israel basically is entirely focused on American opinion which may not be the wrong approach. Or to possibly add to it on governments. I think Ukraine's need was bigger it was tied to its European ambitions and desire to integrate into the West. They needed to convince countries to spend money on them and supply them with arms, which is not a requirement for Israel - also they're the underdog in a way I don't think Israel is or has been perceived as for decades.
I don't think there's been much change from the norm. My perception has changed somewhat which is why I'm interested in the conversation.
But yeah, that's a good analysis of how Israel could be approaching it.
QuoteI honestly think that part of it may be that they don't care.
Edit: And again - they might not be wrong. There is an argument that basically opinion is pretty entrenched on Israel-Palestine, in all my time on the internet, say, I don't think I've seen a single person change their mind about it. So what matters is keeping the US and decision-makers onside (and willing to take some heat domestically). I think many people wouldn't even really have heard of Ukraine far less had an opinion on it - so there's more scope for opinion shaping.
Yeah you're probably right. Maybe Israel has assessed the amount of effort vs the payoff and determined it's just not worth it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 19, 2023, 03:46:31 PMI think this forum and the US are a little bit outliers in global opinion. I'm not sure it's information warfare or Hamas propaganda as much as it is the broad public opinion in large chunks of the world since 1967 - at the latest. A lot of what I see that is pushing this isn't Hamas or Palestinian propaganda but left-wing people online who have views. I've not seen anything from Hamas or Palestinians that seems like Ukraine's efforts.
Polling has found a pretty overwhelming majority of Americans support Israel, in a crazily divided country it is like 65%.
To Americans, which many of us are, we largely don't give a fuck what a bunch of countries that stone women to death for wearing the wrong type of hat, or lynch gays in their spare time think about Israel.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 19, 2023, 05:48:57 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on October 19, 2023, 03:46:31 PMI think this forum and the US are a little bit outliers in global opinion. I'm not sure it's information warfare or Hamas propaganda as much as it is the broad public opinion in large chunks of the world since 1967 - at the latest. A lot of what I see that is pushing this isn't Hamas or Palestinian propaganda but left-wing people online who have views. I've not seen anything from Hamas or Palestinians that seems like Ukraine's efforts.
Polling has found a pretty overwhelming majority of Americans support Israel, in a crazily divided country it is like 65%.
To Americans, which many of us are, we largely don't give a fuck what a bunch of countries that stone women to death for wearing the wrong type of hat, or lynch gays in their spare time think about Israel.
Plus a fair chunk of your religious right are millennialists.
Quote from: Jacob on October 19, 2023, 02:40:30 PMI'm seeing reporting that the Israeli minister of defence say the land operation is going to start soon.
And now a six hour political security cabinet meeting.
The IDF posted graphic videos of the Hamas attacks on it's official Youtube channel.
5.5 million views in 24hrs.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 19, 2023, 05:48:57 PMTo Americans, which many of us are, we largely don't give a fuck what a bunch of countries that stone women to death for wearing the wrong type of hat, or lynch gays in their spare time think about Israel.
I'm all about stoning women wearing the wrong type of hat, particularly if it's like a wide brim with a cocktail dress.
I mean, you just don't do that.
US Navy warship near Yemen intercepts multiple missiles (https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/19/politics/us-navy-intercept-missiles-yemen/index.html)
QuoteOne of the officials said the missiles were fired by Iranian-backed Houthi militants, who are engaged in an ongoing conflict in Yemen. Approximately 2-3 missiles were intercepted, according to the second official.
Later Thursday Pentagon press secretary Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder confirmed that the USS Carney shot down three land attack missiles as well as several drones that were launched by Iran-backed Houthi forces in Yemen.
Nice to see to you here Seedy. I was hoping the recent events to bring you back for a bit.
:osama: I was hoping it would bring back Siegebreaker
So why does Israel need billions from the US?
I'm seeing very little reporting of the Iranian drone attacks on US bases.
This is pretty big and worrying news.
Quote from: Tamas on October 20, 2023, 12:35:24 AMSo why does Israel need billions from the US?
I don't know. Do you think Israel is getting or about to receive billions from the US? All I've heard about is munitions.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2023, 02:44:00 AMQuote from: Tamas on October 20, 2023, 12:35:24 AMSo why does Israel need billions from the US?
I don't know. Do you think Israel is getting or about to receive billions from the US? All I've heard about is munitions.
That's better then, but still that stuff should all go to Ukraine.
Quote from: Tamas on October 20, 2023, 03:01:11 AMThat's better then, but still that stuff should all go to Ukraine.
I've got nothing against a couple hundred million in JDAMs as a gesture of support.
I've definitely heard of billions of aid to Israel. Though it could well be the same deal as much of the Ukrainian aid where its we spent £2 billion on these missiles in 2004 , you can have them, so we mark in our taxes we've donated £2 billion to you.
Quote from: Josquius on October 20, 2023, 03:06:21 AMI've definitely heard of billions of aid to Israel. Though it could well be the same deal as much of the Ukrainian aid where its we spent £2 billion on these missiles in 2004 , you can have them, so we mark in our taxes we've donated £2 billion to you.
Or it could be the aid we give them already, not directly tied to this incident.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2023, 03:09:05 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 20, 2023, 03:06:21 AMI've definitely heard of billions of aid to Israel. Though it could well be the same deal as much of the Ukrainian aid where its we spent £2 billion on these missiles in 2004 , you can have them, so we mark in our taxes we've donated £2 billion to you.
Or it could be the aid we give them already, not directly tied to this incident.
I don't think Biden would have done a presidential TV address to the nation about that though.
Quote from: Tamas on October 20, 2023, 03:17:00 AMI don't think Biden would have done a presidential TV address to the nation about that though.
Neither would I.
Does that mean the US is giving billions to Israel on top of what we're already giving?
Quote from: Tamas on October 20, 2023, 03:17:00 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2023, 03:09:05 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 20, 2023, 03:06:21 AMI've definitely heard of billions of aid to Israel. Though it could well be the same deal as much of the Ukrainian aid where its we spent £2 billion on these missiles in 2004 , you can have them, so we mark in our taxes we've donated £2 billion to you.
Or it could be the aid we give them already, not directly tied to this incident.
I don't think Biden would have done a presidential TV address to the nation about that though.
It's not only for Israel tho. Ukraine, Taiwan and even money for the southern border is rumored.
yeah Biden is trying to equate Urkaine with Israel, and to me, there are many differences. Israel shouldn't need money or munitions to fight Hamas. They do have enough.
Political move to make the republicans opposition to Ukraine look bad?
You know, because supporting genocidal proto fascists invading their neighbour in a war of conquest is otherwise fine.
Quote from: Josquius on October 20, 2023, 06:19:37 AMYou know, because supporting genocidal proto fascists invading their neighbour in a war of conquest is otherwise fine.
Makes me wonder how many dumb comments like this are fueled by anti-semitism. Jos here is probably not an anti-semite, but just like feminists sometimes argue that society is setup so that you cannot avoid to be a bit misogynist it's also probably setup with a lot of anti-semitism at its foundation. A lot of the resentment against Israel really echoes historical anti-semitism.
Difficult to explain why the left often hates Israel without anti-semitism. A secular, historically very leftist, hbtq+-friendly democratic, underdog nation in an otherwise autocratic religious neighbourhood. I'm quite sure there are a lot of internalized reasons, but I've rarely heard reasons that don't sound hollow.
Quote from: Threviel on October 20, 2023, 06:46:38 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 20, 2023, 06:19:37 AMYou know, because supporting genocidal proto fascists invading their neighbour in a war of conquest is otherwise fine.
Makes me wonder how many dumb comments like this are fueled by anti-semitism. Jos here is probably not an anti-semite, but just like feminists sometimes argue that society is setup so that you cannot avoid to be a bit misogynist it's also probably setup with a lot of anti-semitism at its foundation. A lot of the resentment against Israel really echoes historical anti-semitism.
Difficult to explain why the left often hates Israel without anti-semitism. A secular, historically very leftist, hbtq+-friendly democratic, underdog nation in an otherwise autocratic religious neighbourhood. I'm quite sure there are a lot of internalized reasons, but I've rarely heard reasons that don't sound hollow.
Seriously? In October 2023 you dismiss this as a 'dumb comment' and then try to scream anti-semitism? I didn't have you down as a Russia supporter.
Haven't you watched the news at all this past year and a half?
Even from the mainstream international news the story is pretty clear. Look at what propaganda they're spreading internally and it becomes even more overt.
Completely irrelevant to my comment, I'm not sure how you were even beginning to try to tie the two together, but trying to tie any criticism of Israel to anti-semitism is pretty dumb. And Israel as an underdog- lol. A complete misunderstanding of the situation there which is sadly typical of those who hold an Israel can do no wrong, support them in everything to the hilt opinion.
Ohh, sorry, I thought you were taking a dig at US support for Israel. I see lots of those types of comments.
Looked again, dumb of me, I must have had my head up my ass.
Quote from: Josephus on October 20, 2023, 06:06:12 AMyeah Biden is trying to equate Urkaine with Israel, and to me, there are many differences. Israel shouldn't need money or munitions to fight Hamas. They do have enough.
Hamas with Iran like Russia and China is waging war on the west. Maybe we should react.
Quote from: Threviel on October 20, 2023, 06:46:38 AMMakes me wonder how many dumb comments like this are fueled by anti-semitism. Jos here is probably not an anti-semite, but just like feminists sometimes argue that society is setup so that you cannot avoid to be a bit misogynist it's also probably setup with a lot of anti-semitism at its foundation. A lot of the resentment against Israel really echoes historical anti-semitism.
Not on Jos' comment but I agree. The fact that we know that when Israel is in the news or there's conflict in Palestine that security needs to be increased for the Jewish community I think can only be explained by a form of anti-semitism. And I think it's a disgrace and shameful. But I think that conflation of Jews with Israel is rooted in anti-semitism (and to an extent a reason Israel remains necessary).
We've had in London, the Jewish community putting up posters and driving round in advertising trucks with posters calling for the return of the hostages from Hamas. Everywhere they are being torn down, and the advertising truck was made to turn off by the police (who threatened them with a public order offence). Calling for the return of hostages is not an endorsement of any policy by Israel or anything like that.
I also take the point that I've seen some British Jews make that they feel very alone. I haven't read the book but this is the Jews Don't Count argument by David Baddiel. The rallies for Gaza are attended by many, many people and people from all sorts of communities - yes, Muslims, but also many on the left, other minorities etc. And British Jews noticed that at the vigils after the initial Hamas attack it was, broadly speaking, just their community turning up. There's over 10 dead British citizens in these attacks, there are British hostages but also the British Jewish community is relatively small (I think about 300,000) and many will have links to Israel and know someone affected by those attacks (again given how small Israel is). Even aside from what the motivation is the feeling that must leave the community must be really grim and, I think, they are experiencing a form of anti-semitism in that solitary grief even if that isn't necessarily the motivation.
I find the inability to even sympathise on a human level shaming. It's something I find very difficult and I think needs to be called out. I think it's a huge hypocrisy on the left. Generally we are happy to look at structural or systemic biases - i.e. look at the outcome or the impact not the intent - on all other issues, except for anti-semitism when all that matters is what you mean and if, in your heart of hearts, you don't like Jews.
I should add on hypocrisies I am also very annoyed at the number of right-wingers drawing attention to LGBT+ rights in Palestine, given that Suella Braverman has been suggesting that anti-LGBT discrimination in a society shouldd not be sufficient for someone to claim asylum. Again, I think disgracefully.
I won't post it here because I think most people here would hate it but I read a piece by Sam Kriss (who I normally never read) who is an anti-Zionist, which was I think really good on some of this coming from the left and coming from anti-Zionism. Some of the restponse to the Hamas was disgraceful - if I was Labour for example I'd be making it pretty clear that no-one should go on or engage with Novara Media at the minute.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 20, 2023, 07:49:54 AMQuote from: Josephus on October 20, 2023, 06:06:12 AMyeah Biden is trying to equate Urkaine with Israel, and to me, there are many differences. Israel shouldn't need money or munitions to fight Hamas. They do have enough.
Hamas with Iran like Russia and China is waging war on the west. Maybe we should react.
I think Josephus is correct that Israel doesn't need help to fight Hamas, but also there needs to be a clear signal of Western support for the country to make sure the neighbors don't get frisky.
Right now Western support for Ukraine is much more vital, but situations change.
I see a lot of support for Gaza. But any support for the Gaza/Palestinians ought also be caveated with support for Israelis and distancing from Hamas, otherwise support for Gaza equals support for Hamas. But I see very little support for Israelis and very little distancing of Hamas. Whenever I've seen support for Gaza questioned everyone answers that they don't support Hamas, but in my mind any support for Gazans ought to start with criticism of Hamas. I didn't see a lot of leftists thinkers show support for the people of Mosul except in the context of criticising Daesh, to compare apples to apples.
To compare with the almost unanimous support for Ukraine, even our old commies in Sweden votes for weapons to Ukraine. Bucha had 280 dead, but every politician with international ambition has been there to show support. Which is right and well, and in general political leaders have reacted similarly, but public perception of the events differ widely.
Every objective measure ought to point to a wide and strong leftist support for Israel, except that there's a lot of jews there.
Just for fun I tried to find what Byers had to say on Isis, also a terrorist organization masquerading as a state the same as Hamas. I couldn't find the direct source, but according to https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=5467422&fileOId=7854976 (https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=5467422&fileOId=7854976)
he said, in
'Terrorism, the Use of Force and International Law after 11 September'
(2002) QuoteWhen states 'actively support or willingly harbour' the perpetrators, the
question of attribution is considerably simplified and it has even been put
forth that in cases like these military intervention is in place
So yeah... When the victims aren't Israelis military intervention is apparently completely acceptable.
That quote is pretty old so I can't vouch for its veracity and it's from before Isis, but I have had a hard time finding a good source on his views on how Isis ought to be handled from when it was relevant.
I couldn't find anything implying that he thought fighting against Isis, even if incurring civilian casualties, was against international law.
Interesting thought experiment by the way. The Islamic Caliphate under Isis had a similar legal standing as Hamas in Gaza. Terrorist organization claiming statehood recognized by none or very very few. Extremely brutal against perceived enemies and extremely aggressive against neighbours.
I'm, when thinking about it, a hypocrite. I have reacted far more strongly to attacks on Israel than attacks on whoever in Iraq/Syria. Ditto Ukraine when compared to Syria/Chechnya. I don't think my values or views are different, only the intensity of the feelings. I care less about cultures farther from my own.
It would be interesting to compare views on Isis and Hamas though. Anyone for military intervention against Isis back in the day ought to support military intervention against Hamas on the same basis.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 19, 2023, 03:46:31 PMI think this forum and the US are a little bit outliers in global opinion.
That's true for a bunch of reasons I think.
One is the strong evangelical movement that supports Israel as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy of the end time, which from both objective and personal experience is a very real thing.
Another is a sense of identity with Israel as a fellow "pioneer" state and (since 2001) one under attack from Islamic terrorism. The anti-colonial rhetoric that plays well elsewhere backfires to a great extent in the US. It also helps that Israel focuses attention on cultivating positive impressions in the US and cultivating these themes.
Another less important from a mass perspective but significant on the so-called "elite" side is Israel's long role as reliable national security partner in the region.
On the flip side, outside the US, support for Palestinian groupings as "national liberation" movements follows on the Left's reflexive support for such movements, and the anti-colonial narrative previously mention. On the Right, while there is little sympathy for Palestinians, support for Israel is muted by traditional right-wing antisemitism. In Europe in particular, support for Israel appears to be highly concentrated in the political center and the center has been under siege in recent years.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 20, 2023, 09:02:14 AMOn the flip side, outside the US, support for Palestinian groupings as "national liberation" movements follows on the Left's reflexive support for such movements, and the anti-colonial narrative previously mention. On the Right, while there is little sympathy for Palestinians, support for Israel is muted by traditional right-wing antisemitism. In Europe in particular, support for Israel appears to be highly concentrated in the political center and the center has been under siege in recent years.
I think there is more support for Israel on the radical and far right in Europe, in part because they are primarily Islamophobic and identify with Israel as engaged in the same fight. I think many Jews (though perhaps not Israel's government), as minorities are highly suspect of those parties for good reason.
Although on the point around the centre I think that's true, but the pressure isn't equally distributed. In the Tories I think there is a philo-semitic tradition (often from outside the party establishment, for example Churchill, Thatcher, Johnson). As ancestor worshippers that makes a fair few others adopt a similar approach. I think while the support may be concentrated in the centre the opposition or passion is on the left. So, at least in the UK, leader on the right is unlikely to have any real political consequences for being too pro-Israel but might have internal ructions if they're not supportive (from decision makers/elite side). A Labour leader - and I think this goes for the left in Europe generally - will have to fight their party if they're perceived as too supportive. Blair's support for Israel in Lebanon triggered the move against him that led to his resignation, Starmer's been criticised on the left with Labour councillors leaving the party etc. Violence in the Middle East doesn't cause problems for a government of the right in Europe, it does for a government of the left.
I think the point on the sense of identity/identification is really important as well - it is not for nothing that one area of the UK where there is something like the US is Northern Ireland. You have, as in America, very conservative Protestants (though not as keen on the end times stuff). They are from a religious tradition that identifies with the Old Testament - it's a political and religious culture that still does Covenants where everyone signs a document, and the symbol of many of those churches is the burning bush. And I think there is also a similar colonial/settler heritage as in the US. The flipside I think there's probably nowhere in Europe with more vocal support for and identification with Palestinians (including sometimes support for violence) than Republicans in Northern Ireland. Ireland is broadly quite pro-Palestinian but I think it's other level for Republicans in the North.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 20, 2023, 09:02:14 AMOne is the strong evangelical movement that supports Israel as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy of the end time, which from both objective and personal experience is a very real thing.
Let us be clear--I support Israel because I hate Muslims, not out of any religious empathy towards Jews (and I'm not a Protty Evangelical either.)
Quote from: Threviel on October 20, 2023, 08:42:30 AMJust for fun I tried to find what Byers had to say on Isis, also a terrorist organization masquerading as a state the same as Hamas. I couldn't find the direct source, but according to https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=5467422&fileOId=7854976 (https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=5467422&fileOId=7854976)
he said, in
'Terrorism, the Use of Force and International Law after 11 September'
(2002)
QuoteWhen states 'actively support or willingly harbour' the perpetrators, the
question of attribution is considerably simplified and it has even been put
forth that in cases like these military intervention is in place
So yeah... When the victims aren't Israelis military intervention is apparently completely acceptable.
That quote is pretty old so I can't vouch for its veracity and it's from before Isis, but I have had a hard time finding a good source on his views on how Isis ought to be handled from when it was relevant.
I couldn't find anything implying that he thought fighting against Isis, even if incurring civilian casualties, was against international law.
I don't believe that Byer is arguing against Israel's use of force, per se, but against (1) collective punishment (regarding which I believe he is correct), and (2) against Israel's actions as an Occupying Power forcing Gazans to leave their homes, regarding which I believe him to be not only wrong, but obviously wrong and deliberately mis-stating what the LOAC actually says.
Quote from: Josquius on October 20, 2023, 06:19:37 AMPolitical move to make the republicans opposition to Ukraine look bad?
You know, because supporting genocidal proto fascists invading their neighbour in a war of conquest is otherwise fine.
I think you may be right. "Are you siding against Israel?" shan't be a good look for GOPtards even nowadays.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 20, 2023, 02:44:00 AMQuote from: Tamas on October 20, 2023, 12:35:24 AMSo why does Israel need billions from the US?
I don't know. Do you think Israel is getting or about to receive billions from the US? All I've heard about is munitions.
317.9 bilions$ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States_relations) adjusted for inflation, 1946-2022. More than to any other State, but it's been longer too.
Obviously, there are strategic interests in supporting Israel.
Don't have a Haaretz account so can't get the whole piece but if this, from Anshel Pfeffer is true it's absolutely rancid:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F8xhb4HXwAEUTQj?format=png&name=small)
Separately reports Western allies are pushing Israel to delay a ground offensive while they're having quiet talks with Qatar over the release of hostages. I wouldn't be surprised if they're talking to Qatar possibly to provide Israel with a way out of a ground invasion. I've never quite understood how Qatar gets away with as much as it does and hopefully the Western partners are making it clear they're helpful on this or that's over.
Edit: (Link for people with a Haaretz account: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-17/ty-article/.premium/netanyahu-is-petrified-of-the-hostages-families-it-could-impact-his-judgment/0000018b-3e01-d5be-a7eb-befd1bc50000)
I will be beyond shocked if any level of diplomacy stops a ground invasion--frankly I'm not even convinced Biden or his administration are against a ground invasion.
I suspect they may want to try to get hostages out, but I don't see a situation where Israel suffers an attack that would be the equivalent of America suffering 30,000 dead and it just agrees to some slap on the wrist for Hamas.
My guess is at a minimum they are going in for an operation, and probably they move permanent Israeli security infrastructure inside the security barrier, and probably take control of the Rafah crossing on the Gazan side as well, so that there is no longer any border to Gaza not under absolute Israeli control.
To me that's probably the minimalist goals of Israel, and I actually doubt the U.S. thinks going back to a status quo where people agree to move on is realistic.
Apparently 2 hostages were released
So what are Bibi's options, broadly speaking?
My thinking is something like this:
1) Ground Invasion - attempting to be surgical and effective, following the rules of war
- What are the actual surgical and effective goals that make sense?
- He risks getting stuck in a domestically unpopular and costly quagmire.
- It may not be enough to satisfy those in Israel who desire vengeance.
- It runs the risk turning allies against Israel if it's perceived as being unreasonably bloody (lower risk than #2 below).
2) Ground Invasion - ethnic cleansing version
Go in claiming it's version #1 above, but with the objective to make life untenable for Palestinians in Palestine
- Potentially it leaves Israel less vulnerable to threats from the Palestinian population and claims more ground for Israel
- It runs the risk of turning important allies against Israel if they're perceived as going too far
- Risk of a united Arab response or attack by Iran, and a wider regional conflagration (this could potentially be a plus in Bibi's eyes as strong action against Arab states/ Iran will be seen as less problematic by key allies than active genocide against Palestinians)
- Satisfies domestic desire for vengeance, but also runs the risk of a strong backlash domestically
3) Ranged attacks on Hamas with very limited incursions into Gaza, potentially as a result of some sort of concessions
- Runs the risk of Bibi looking weak to everyone - Hamas, Muslim states, domestic political opponents of all stripes
- May not satisfy those in Israel who desire venegance
- Runs the risk of emboldening Hamas and simmilar actors, if they're seen as "getting away with it."
Doesn't seem like a great set of options. Did I miss anything?
Quote from: Jacob on October 20, 2023, 03:18:14 PMSo what are Bibi's options, broadly speaking?
My thinking is something like this:
1) Ground Invasion - attempting to be surgical and effective, following the rules of war
- What are the actual surgical and effective goals that make sense?
- He risks getting stuck in a domestically unpopular and costly quagmire.
- It may not be enough to satisfy those in Israel who desire vengeance.
- It runs the risk turning allies against Israel if it's perceived as being unreasonably bloody (lower risk than #2 below).
2) Ground Invasion - ethnic cleansing version
Go in claiming it's version #1 above, but with the objective to make life untenable for Palestinians in Palestine
- Potentially it leaves Israel less vulnerable to threats from the Palestinian population and claims more ground for Israel
- It runs the risk of turning important allies against Israel if they're perceived as going too far
- Risk of a united Arab response or attack by Iran, and a wider regional conflagration (this could potentially be a plus in Bibi's eyes as strong action against Arab states/ Iran will be seen as less problematic by key allies than active genocide against Palestinians)
- Satisfies domestic desire for vengeance, but also runs the risk of a strong backlash domestically
3) Ranged attacks on Hamas with very limited incursions into Gaza, potentially as a result of some sort of concessions
- Runs the risk of Bibi looking weak to everyone - Hamas, Muslim states, domestic political opponents of all stripes
- May not satisfy those in Israel who desire venegance
- Runs the risk of emboldening Hamas and simmilar actors, if they're seen as "getting away with it."
Doesn't seem like a great set of options. Did I miss anything?
I doubt things are being weighed this way.
Quote from: Jacob on October 20, 2023, 03:18:14 PMSo what are Bibi's options, broadly speaking?
My thinking is something like this:
1) Ground Invasion - attempting to be surgical and effective, following the rules of war
2) Ground Invasion - ethnic cleansing version
Go in claiming it's version #1 above, but with the objective to make life untenable for Palestinians in Palestine
3) Ranged attacks on Hamas with very limited incursions into Gaza, potentially as a result of some sort of concessions
So I don't think #3 is being very seriously considered. It absolutely would make Israel look weak compared to this outrage.
I don't think #2 is being considered at all. First of all I'm not sure if this was a typo or not - you said "Palestine" not "Gaza". I think the world would be outraged if Israel took this terrorist attack by Hamas as an opportunity to strike in Fatah-controlled West Bank.
But more than that - there is nowhere for the Gaza Palestinians to go. Egypt won't open the border to them. Nobody else will take them.
So you're stuck with #1 - but there are two different versions of #1.
There's 1A: Ground invasion, kill some terrorists, declare victory and leave.
-It satisfies the need to look strong, minimizes your own casualties (though they will still be high), but probably does little to prevent a further attack in the future.
Then there's 1B: ground invasion and re-occupy.
-more likely to actually prevent further terrorist attacks, but maximizes the chances of Israeli casualties.
Good work by the ICRC in a very difficult situation.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 20, 2023, 02:42:33 PMI will be beyond shocked if any level of diplomacy stops a ground invasion--frankly I'm not even convinced Biden or his administration are against a ground invasion.
I suspect they may want to try to get hostages out, but I don't see a situation where Israel suffers an attack that would be the equivalent of America suffering 30,000 dead and it just agrees to some slap on the wrist for Hamas.
My guess is at a minimum they are going in for an operation, and probably they move permanent Israeli security infrastructure inside the security barrier, and probably take control of the Rafah crossing on the Gazan side as well, so that there is no longer any border to Gaza not under absolute Israeli control.
To me that's probably the minimalist goals of Israel, and I actually doubt the U.S. thinks going back to a status quo where people agree to move on is realistic.
Maybe - or reduces an invasion.
I'd slightly separate it from hostages. I think the fact there are multiple dual citizens complicates just total disregard for the hostages or at least not trying to get them out. Hamas are clearly aware of that with their unilateral (according to Israel - ie no prisoner exchange) release of two American hostages today.
On the invasion my thought is if the west really put the thumbscrews on Qatar (and arguably should have done this at a far earlier stage) to basically hand over the Hamas people living there, turn off the taps etc in a way that may deliver some of Israel's objectives. It's certainly something I'd hope the western powers are looking at.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 20, 2023, 10:41:30 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 20, 2023, 02:42:33 PMI will be beyond shocked if any level of diplomacy stops a ground invasion--frankly I'm not even convinced Biden or his administration are against a ground invasion.
I suspect they may want to try to get hostages out, but I don't see a situation where Israel suffers an attack that would be the equivalent of America suffering 30,000 dead and it just agrees to some slap on the wrist for Hamas.
My guess is at a minimum they are going in for an operation, and probably they move permanent Israeli security infrastructure inside the security barrier, and probably take control of the Rafah crossing on the Gazan side as well, so that there is no longer any border to Gaza not under absolute Israeli control.
To me that's probably the minimalist goals of Israel, and I actually doubt the U.S. thinks going back to a status quo where people agree to move on is realistic.
Maybe - or reduces an invasion.
I'd slightly separate it from hostages. I think the fact there are multiple dual citizens complicates just total disregard for the hostages or at least not trying to get them out. Hamas are clearly aware of that with their unilateral (according to Israel - ie no prisoner exchange) release of two American hostages today.
On the invasion my thought is if the west really put the thumbscrews on Qatar (and arguably should have done this at a far earlier stage) to basically hand over the Hamas people living there, turn off the taps etc in a way that may deliver some of Israel's objectives. It's certainly something I'd hope the western powers are looking at.
Qatar => gas.
100k pro-Palestine protest in London today. You know you are on the right side of an issue when Turkish flags are being pushed into the forefront of the protest you are attending.
Quote from: Tamas on October 21, 2023, 09:02:47 AM100k pro-Palestine protest in London today. You know you are on the right side of an issue when Turkish flags are being pushed into the forefront of the protest you are attending.
Why?
Being Turkish doesn't necessarily mean being a fan of their current government.
Though I would say it's rather dumb of them. 100k in Britain sounds more impressive when the Israel fanboys can't just say "oh its all just anti semitic Muslims"
At least it's not the hammer and sickle. Those guys just don't get how counter productive they are for any cause.
Seen this morning.
Sadly as expected the worst people in Israel are using the worlds outpouring of support for Israel to really push their shit.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/21/the-most-successful-land-grab-strategy-since-1967-as-settlers-push-bedouins-off-west-bank-territory?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Quote from: Tamas on October 21, 2023, 09:02:47 AM100k pro-Palestine protest in London today. You know you are on the right side of an issue when Turkish flags are being pushed into the forefront of the protest you are attending.
No doubt part 'infiltrated' by agents/supporters of various ME regimes, several of which are using staged demos to use the Gaza conflict for their own political gains, especially the likes of Al-Sisi's Egypt, where everything is staged managed.
Also, seems like the US administration has fully embraced collective punishment, to the extent that Biden has all but washed his hands of the 500-600 Americans in Gaza.
Quote from: Tamas on October 21, 2023, 09:02:47 AM100k pro-Palestine protest in London today. You know you are on the right side of an issue when Turkish flags are being pushed into the forefront of the protest you are attending.
I guess the illegal Turkish colonisation and occupation in Northern Cyprus does not matter that much. :hmm:
OTOH, Israel has a working relationship with Azerbaijan...
I do think Israel has messed up the PR for the current conflict. YouGov did a poll on this a couple of days ago in the UK and there was overwhelming, cross party support for an immediate ceasefire between the two sides:
Details here:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/travel/survey-results/daily/2023/10/19/e363e/1
Which sits starkly with the pro-Israeli Westminster consensus at the moment, especially since even Tory voters are largely in favour of a ceasefire too.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 21, 2023, 02:54:19 AMQatar => gas.
Yeah. They're the UK's gas supplier of last resort, officially. But bluntly I think there is more reliance from them than in the case of, say, Russia and the West is more able to bully them a bit more - and it should.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 21, 2023, 10:14:42 AMQuote from: Tamas on October 21, 2023, 09:02:47 AM100k pro-Palestine protest in London today. You know you are on the right side of an issue when Turkish flags are being pushed into the forefront of the protest you are attending.
I guess the illegal Turkish colonisation and occupation in Northern Cyprus does not matter that much. :hmm:
OTOH, Israel has a working relationship with Azerbaijan...
or the Armenian genocide, or the solving of very similar Turkish issue. re the Greeks in the 1920s.
There were also hundreds of thousands of Turks expelled form the Balkans (including Greece) in the 1920s. It's one of those bouts of Europea ethnic cleansing to make people match the borders which is now sort of forgotten, a bit like post-war Germans.
Also Northern Cyprus voted overwhelmingly for the UN negotiated peace plan that would have unified Cyprus. It was the rest of Cyprus that rejected it and were then let into the EU anyway, which was wrong.
I do always find it mad when Europe takes a moral high horse. I'm reminded of the European diplomat who said or the War in Ukraine that it was "inconceivable" for history to be settled in Europe by tank battles, there is literally nowhere in the world where history has been more settled by tank battles than Europe. Similarly, the number of genocides and what we would now consider ethnic cleansing across Europe in the last 150 years to make people match borders is extraordinary. We're a charnel house of a continent that chooses to forget that.
I always think of, I think President Ruto of Kenya's, speech on Ukraine condemning Russia when he noted that Africa was left with states that did not necessarily reflect the people and they were left with borders that no African had even been involved in. But, generally (and especially compared to similar problems in Europe's history - or Partition for that matter), African countries have been trying to make those states work. There's not been many wars over territory or mass expulsions - which isn't to say there's no conflict because of course there is, but not like Europe's historic inability to live with each other.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 21, 2023, 11:51:49 AMThere were also hundreds of thousands of Turks expelled form the Balkans (including Greece) in the 1920s. It's one of those bouts of Europea ethnic cleansing to make people match the borders which is now sort of forgotten, a bit like post-war Germans.
They weren't slaughtered or exterminated, however, unlike what happened to Pontic Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians.
Part of peace treaties, unfortunately. Turkey had also a clause about excluding the Greek minority in Constantinople from the ethnic cleasing which was rendered moot by pogroms in the 1950's
False equivalency.
QuoteAlso Northern Cyprus voted overwhelmingly for the UN negotiated peace plan that would have unified Cyprus. It was the rest of Cyprus that rejected it and were then let into the EU anyway, which was wrong.
The last one, which made very little for the return of refugees and very little for Turkish settlers (not Turkish Cypriots) to leave. A bad plan.
What's the excuse by the way for Armenians and Assyrians?
I think that the evidence indicates that the mass expulsions in the Balkans were of Muslims as a whole, of which Turks were a minority (25%?). Not that this changes anyone's conclusions, but I am just noting it for the record.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 21, 2023, 12:00:37 PMThey weren't slaughtered or exterminated, however, unlike what happened to Pontic Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians. False equivalency.
No disputing on Armenia or Assyrians, but I don't think you can mention the expulsion of Greeks in the 1920s without the expulsion of Turks in the 1920s - not least because they were part of the same agreement at the end of the same conflict.
The peace fulfils maximal Greek territorial demands/the Megali Idea and Greece invades. As part of its offensive there are massacres of Turks in Anatolia and villages wiped out. Ataturk rallies the Turks into a counter-offensive which is devastatingly successful and ends with the burning of Smyrna. Again there are massacres and expulsions.
After that conflict the parties agree to a population exchange so 1.5 million Greeks and Turks are forced from their homes and into "new" countries. I think it's different from Armenia, for example - and, in particular, with its direct relationship with the Greco-Turkish war I think it prefigures post-WW2 population exchanges across CEE (Western Europe did theirs at an earlier stage).
QuoteThe last one, which made very little for the return of refugees and very little for Turkish settlers (not Turkish Cypriots) to leave. A bad plan.
I disagree. But also - and this is sort of my position on Israel and Palestine too - I think normally for peace to work part of it is drawing a line under where we are, rather than to right the wrongs of the past. Obviously those legacy issues are also normally the thing that blocks peace because it is difficult to accept that things won't revert, but generally speaking - they don't and it's about finding a way to live together in a way that respects everyone's rights. Not a new round of expulsions or suffering, often for people to young to remember the original conflict.
FWIW I think there will be very little on right to return in Israel and Palestine too.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 21, 2023, 12:45:11 PMThe peace fulfils maximal Greek territorial demands/the Megali Idea and Greece invades. As part of its offensive there are massacres of Turks in Anatolia and villages wiped out. Ataturk rallies the Turks into a counter-offensive which is devastatingly successful and ends with the burning of Smyrna. Again there are massacres and expulsions.
Yes, and the Brits wanted to use the Greeks for their imperial objectives as well. :P
Still no mention of the Genocide of the Pontic Greeks, however.
QuoteAfter that conflict the parties agree to a population exchange so 1.5 million Greeks and Turks are forced from their homes and into "new" countries. I think it's different from Armenia, for example - and, in particular, with its direct relationship with the Greco-Turkish war I think it prefigures post-WW2 population exchanges across CEE (Western Europe did theirs at an earlier stage).
Yes, but the Greeks of Constantinople are not be included in the exchange. In later years, second-class status and the great pogrom of Istanbul manage to almost nothing. Even nowadays, for the very little number that remains their status is still second-class, at best.
Then the wave of Turkish settlers in Cyprus. Not exactly comparable.
Western Europe did much less population population exchanges see German-speaking Alto Adige/South Tyrol or even the
Papierfranzosen who ended up staying in Alsace and Moselle. Other Alsatians and Mosellans being obviously counted as French.
QuoteI disagree. But also - and this is sort of my position on Israel and Palestine too - I think normally for peace to work part of it is drawing a line under where we are, rather than to right the wrongs of the past. Obviously those legacy issues are also normally the thing that blocks peace because it is difficult to accept that things won't revert, but generally speaking - they don't and it's about finding a way to live together in a way that respects everyone's rights. Not a new round of expulsions or suffering, often for people to young to remember the original conflict.
Problem is, Cyprus being already in the EU has more leverage now. Turkish Cypriots, as opposed to Turkish settlers, actually are in a worse position. Turkey is fine with the statu quo.
QuoteFWIW I think there will be very little on right to return in Israel and Palestine too.
Agreed, that what was one of the problems which were not solved under the peace plan proposals. They could not even agree on a symbolical return of refugees followed by indemnities of some sort.
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/eadda39ddcb7b62aeb0fe1fe9cd6ebd0f9fe8f5608629f561dde3987d9a075dc.gif)
the building got culturally enriched...
On the Turkish flags I'm not really sure - I've not seen any from images in London and I don't think there's any in the Guardian video either :huh:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2023/oct/21/pro-palestine-protests-take-place-in-london-for-second-consecutive-week-video
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 21, 2023, 05:09:57 PMOn the Turkish flags I'm not really sure - I've not seen any from images in London and I don't think there's any in the Guardian video either :huh:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2023/oct/21/pro-palestine-protests-take-place-in-london-for-second-consecutive-week-video
From the live Guardian reporting at the time:
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/00a58dbdd85772fa7862f0dc2910cab90af71f8c/0_105_5864_3517/master/5864.jpg?width=700&dpr=1&s=none)
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/c8364f3fb2945dd133b829dd9786151308e081e6/0_227_4000_2399/master/4000.jpg?width=700&dpr=1&s=none)
I'm sure Hamas will agree to and abide by any ceasefire.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/21/its-simply-a-call-for-freedom-marchers-defend-contentious-slogan-at-london-palestine-protest
From river to the sea Palestine will be free chanted the London crowd. I know for a lot of them is simply ignorance of what that actually means, but for how many?
Quote from: mongers on October 21, 2023, 10:09:28 AMAlso, seems like the US administration has fully embraced collective punishment, to the extent that Biden has all but washed his hands of the 500-600 Americans in Gaza.
Is this another way of saying the US has not agreed to pay the ransom Hamas is demanding?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 21, 2023, 06:46:24 PMQuote from: mongers on October 21, 2023, 10:09:28 AMAlso, seems like the US administration has fully embraced collective punishment, to the extent that Biden has all but washed his hands of the 500-600 Americans in Gaza.
Is this another way of saying the US has not agreed to pay the ransom Hamas is demanding?
No.
Quote from: Tamas on October 21, 2023, 06:28:04 PMhttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/21/its-simply-a-call-for-freedom-marchers-defend-contentious-slogan-at-london-palestine-protest
From river to the sea Palestine will be free chanted the London crowd. I know for a lot of them is simply ignorance of what that actually means, but for how many?
It's not a slogan I'm familiar with but the people there claim not to mean it that way at all and a quick google seems to be imply it's used variably from destroy all Jews nuts through to regular two state and single state solution people?
I mean thinking about it literally from the river to the sea Palestine should be free... West bank and gaza yes.
If it is usually offensive its quite the round about dog whistle.
It certainly seems to be something mired in bad faith from both sides.
Quote from: Josquius on October 21, 2023, 11:48:55 PMIt's not a slogan I'm familiar with but the people there claim not to mean it that way at all and a quick google seems to be imply it's used variably from destroy all Jews nuts through to regular two state and single state solution people?
I mean thinking about it literally from the river to the sea Palestine should be free... West bank and gaza yes.
If it is usually offensive its quite the round about dog whistle.
It certainly seems to be something mired in bad faith from both sides.
"From the river to the sea" is a phrase I am familiar with for many years.
I always understood that to mean the destruction of Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state instead.
Whether that meant killing all the Jews, or just expelling them, was left undecided.
To be fair "from the river to the sea" is used by anyone who claims they are the only valid residents of the region. Jewish extremists / far right nationalists use the phrase regularly as well--obviously with the opposite connotation from the Palestinians who use it.
Quote from: mongers on October 21, 2023, 07:52:07 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on October 21, 2023, 06:46:24 PMQuote from: mongers on October 21, 2023, 10:09:28 AMAlso, seems like the US administration has fully embraced collective punishment, to the extent that Biden has all but washed his hands of the 500-600 Americans in Gaza.
Is this another way of saying the US has not agreed to pay the ransom Hamas is demanding?
No.
Strange, when I look at headlines all I see are headlines saying Biden has called for Gaza invasion to be delayed until more American hostages can be released.
Quote from: grumbler on October 21, 2023, 12:10:55 PMI think that the evidence indicates that the mass expulsions in the Balkans were of Muslims as a whole, of which Turks were a minority (25%?). Not that this changes anyone's conclusions, but I am just noting it for the record.
It's a good point actually, with variations for Greece.
The current native muslim population of Greece (Western Thrace mostly), which has not shrunk due to state-orchestrated terror and oppression, unlike Turkey, since the Treaty of Lausanne, is 50 % Turkish-speaking, 35 % Pomak (slavic-speaking) and 15 % Gypsy.
The millet system, mixing up all muslims togethers, a legacy from the Turks, complicates things.
Quote from: garbon on October 22, 2023, 01:25:14 AMQuote from: mongers on October 21, 2023, 07:52:07 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on October 21, 2023, 06:46:24 PMQuote from: mongers on October 21, 2023, 10:09:28 AMAlso, seems like the US administration has fully embraced collective punishment, to the extent that Biden has all but washed his hands of the 500-600 Americans in Gaza.
Is this another way of saying the US has not agreed to pay the ransom Hamas is demanding?
No.
Strange, when I look at headlines all I see are headlines saying Biden has called for Gaza invasion to be delayed until more American hostages can be released.
I wasn't talking about the hostages.
Talking out your ass is most like it.
Quote from: garbon on October 22, 2023, 07:19:49 AMTalking out your ass is most like it.
:blink:
What so hard to understand, there are probably two dozen Isreali-Americans/US citizens held hostage by hamas and 500-600 Palestinians-Americans who can't get out of Gaza due to the Rafah crossing being closed to them.
Quote from: mongers on October 22, 2023, 08:44:25 AMQuote from: garbon on October 22, 2023, 07:19:49 AMTalking out your ass is most like it.
:blink:
What so hard to understand, there are probably two dozen Isreali-Americans/US citizens held hostage by hamas and 500-600 Palestinians-Americans who can't get out of Gaza due to the Rafah crossing being closed to them.
I applaud you for continuing to try to explain basic facts. But very few here want to hear anything but Israel is always right and any criticism of Israel is always wrong.
It is scary to see, but that is the world we live in.
I'm not sure why it is so hard for people to understand that it is possible to both condemn HAMAS and have concern for Palestinians. But again that is now the world we live in.
Quote from: mongers on October 22, 2023, 08:44:25 AMQuote from: garbon on October 22, 2023, 07:19:49 AMTalking out your ass is most like it.
:blink:
What so hard to understand, there are probably two dozen Isreali-Americans/US citizens held hostage by hamas and 500-600 Palestinians-Americans who can't get out of Gaza due to the Rafah crossing being closed to them.
Because you have provided no evidence of your assertion despite multiple opportunities to do so. You have clarified but still no support.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2023, 09:12:50 AMQuote from: mongers on October 22, 2023, 08:44:25 AMQuote from: garbon on October 22, 2023, 07:19:49 AMTalking out your ass is most like it.
:blink:
What so hard to understand, there are probably two dozen Isreali-Americans/US citizens held hostage by hamas and 500-600 Palestinians-Americans who can't get out of Gaza due to the Rafah crossing being closed to them.
I applaud you for continuing to try to explain basic facts. But very few here want to hear anything but Israel is always right and any criticism of Israel is always wrong.
It is scary to see, but that is the world we live in.
I'm not sure why it is so hard for people to understand that it is possible to both condemn HAMAS and have concern for Palestinians. But again that is now the world we live in.
For me what is frustrating and telling is that there is no end to protests and articles about the tragedy that is inevitably unfolding in Gaza. Yet none of those protests or articles (apart from a sentence or two) let alone separate protests/articles aim to address the problem that Hamas -the government of Gaza- perpetrated a terror attack on hundreds if not thousands of Israeli civilians. That is already forgotten and gone from concerns of the general world. It seems if Israel opted to do nothing and simply return to the status quo, passively waiting for the next such massacre, that would be a-ok with a lot of people.
Quote from: Tamas on October 22, 2023, 12:05:55 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2023, 09:12:50 AMQuote from: mongers on October 22, 2023, 08:44:25 AMQuote from: garbon on October 22, 2023, 07:19:49 AMTalking out your ass is most like it.
:blink:
What so hard to understand, there are probably two dozen Isreali-Americans/US citizens held hostage by hamas and 500-600 Palestinians-Americans who can't get out of Gaza due to the Rafah crossing being closed to them.
I applaud you for continuing to try to explain basic facts. But very few here want to hear anything but Israel is always right and any criticism of Israel is always wrong.
It is scary to see, but that is the world we live in.
I'm not sure why it is so hard for people to understand that it is possible to both condemn HAMAS and have concern for Palestinians. But again that is now the world we live in.
For me what is frustrating and telling is that there is no end to protests and articles about the tragedy that is inevitably unfolding in Gaza. Yet none of those protests or articles (apart from a sentence or two) let alone separate protests/articles aim to address the problem that Hamas -the government of Gaza- perpetrated a terror attack on hundreds if not thousands of Israeli civilians. That is already forgotten and gone from concerns of the general world. It seems if Israel opted to do nothing and simply return to the status quo, passively waiting for the next such massacre, that would be a-ok with a lot of people.
"First the jews, then the Christians."
Just keep that in mind.
And the self-loathing of a lot of westerners being useful idiots in those protests.
edit: Could be that the Iranian protests are heating up again since the morality police beat another teenage girl to death because she didn't want to imprison her head in cloth. Depending on how serious it gets, it may have an effect on what actions Iran can actually take.
Quote from: Tamas on October 22, 2023, 12:05:55 PMFor me what is frustrating and telling is that there is no end to protests and articles about the tragedy that is inevitably unfolding in Gaza. Yet none of those protests or articles (apart from a sentence or two) let alone separate protests/articles aim to address the problem that Hamas -the government of Gaza- perpetrated a terror attack on hundreds if not thousands of Israeli civilians. That is already forgotten and gone from concerns of the general world. It seems if Israel opted to do nothing and simply return to the status quo, passively waiting for the next such massacre, that would be a-ok with a lot of people.
It's the love being displayed by the supporters of the coallition
https://twitter.com/GabeZZOZZ/status/1713170844464136376?t=WVroucEJAs8Fnqic6OyjRw&s=19
Anyway. Why did this attack happened? Why was Hamas allowed to grow into such a threat? Why was the PLO and the later the PA always seen as the biggest threat of all but never the fundies?
That's Israel, and lately, Netanyahu's policies blowing up in their face, and innocent civilians have been butchered by nazis for this. And now, the Palestinians are paying the price of revenge because a bunch of incompetent morons thought it was better to kill Palestinian civilians in the West Bank, even when they were warned about Iran and the situation in Gaza by their own intelligence service.
It's not forgotten, it won't be, except for the anti-semites, but unless you want to cleanse the area of all Palestinians and colonize it, there ain't much short term solutions to be applied. And that's what this government has in mind, and what's worrying is that it let the situation degenerate enough that it now has the tacit support of a majority of Israelis.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 22, 2023, 12:20:07 PM"First the jews, then the Christians."
I'm ok, I don't identify as a Christian. :sleep: :ph34r:
I can see this finishing like the end of the Tamil Tigers, on beaches packed with large numbers of trapped civilians, though possibly worse still.
Of course Hamas could start following the rules of war and removing themselves from civilian areas and conduct an 'open fight' but that would just bring about their earlier extinction and many fewer Israeli military deaths.
And very very many fewer Palestinian civilians death. But it seens only the Israeli side seems unwilling to spend those lives.
Quote from: mongers on October 22, 2023, 02:18:16 PMI can see this finishing like the end of the Tamil Tigers, on beaches packed with large numbers of trapped civilians, though possibly worse still.
Of course Hamas could start following the rules of war and removing themselves from civilian areas and conduct an 'open fight' but that would just bring about their earlier extinction and many fewer Israeli military deaths.
The fighting necessary to take northern gaza could last a year if the Israelis try everything to minimize their own casualties. This phase of the war will not be resolved in the next few weeks. So pace yourselves accordingly.
Hamas forces in the area will go to their deaths about as gracefully as the ISIS caliphate did wrt to civilian casualties.
Quote from: mongers on October 22, 2023, 02:18:16 PMOf course Hamas could start following the rules of war and removing themselves from civilian areas and conduct an 'open fight' but that would just bring about their earlier extinction and many fewer Israeli military deaths.
Well, Hamas would never willingly do that, it's a terrorist organization. They're the ones who developed the MO of striking first responders right after a terrorist attack to maximize casualties.
Secondly, I'm not sure there are a non civilian areas in Gaza. How tightly packed are they over there? 6500 people per square km. There must not be large tracts of unused land where the Hamas could install military bases.
Anyway, they are probably mostly underground to avoid detection by Israel and being targeted by air/missile strikes. They probably carry their rocket or missile launcher parts above ground when they want to strike at Israel and assemble them above ground then.
Quote from: mongers on October 22, 2023, 08:44:25 AMQuote from: garbon on October 22, 2023, 07:19:49 AMTalking out your ass is most like it.
:blink:
What so hard to understand, there are probably two dozen Isreali-Americans/US citizens held hostage by hamas and 500-600 Palestinians-Americans who can't get out of Gaza due to the Rafah crossing being closed to them.
:blink:
What so hard to understand? You make the claims that "Biden has all but washed his hands of the 500-600 Americans in Gaza" and that it "seems like the US administration has fully embraced collective punishment" but give no evidence for either assertion.
Quote from: mongers on October 22, 2023, 08:44:25 AM:blink:
What so hard to understand, there are probably two dozen Isreali-Americans/US citizens held hostage by hamas and 500-600 Palestinians-Americans who can't get out of Gaza due to the Rafah crossing being closed to them.
The part I'm having a hard time understanding is how 500-600 Palestinian Americans who can not exit at the Rafah crossing is not on Hamas, and how any of this information demonstrates that "the US has all but washed its hands of the American citizens in Gaza."
Too slow.
Also the vids of ordinary Palestinians cheering in the streets as the naked bodies off dead Israeli women were paraded around by Hamas makes it hard to find the proper sympathy for the greater number of Palestinians who did no such thing. Hamas's main goal is to kill Israelis but their secondary goal is to try to ensure the maximum death count for the Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Personal survival seems to take third place, and the survival of civilians no place at all.
Quote from: grumbler on October 22, 2023, 06:24:32 PMAlso the vids of ordinary Palestinians cheering in the streets as the naked bodies off dead Israeli women were paraded around by Hamas makes it hard to find the proper sympathy for the greater number of Palestinians who did no such thing.
Kinda happen on both sides. (https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20230831-israel-forces-shoot-dead-palestinian-minor-in-jerusalem/)
And soldiers cheering (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/world/middleeast/israel-video-cheer-palestinian-shot.html) after shooting an unarmed man.
Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's hard-line defense minister, said, "The sniper deserves a commendation while the one filming deserves condemnation." He added that it was "understandable" that soldiers at the front sometimes had to let off steam. So, we can deduce that shooting unarmed civilians who pose no threat is jut letting off steam for the IDF, according to the former defense minister of the Netanyahu government. His only objection was that it was made public.
Hamas, on the opposite, likes to shoot that kind of videos, it reinforces the idea in the Arab countries they have overwhelming support and lets recruits flock to them, incite other terrorists to commit atrocities like the recent Belgium attack. For Israel, it makes them look bad and show the reality of the conflict, that the IDF is not just defending itself against brutal terrorists like Hamas militants.
Nice of you to equate public cheer at parading dead civilian women at the back of trucks to public cheer to a police officer shooting a minor that allegedly went around and attacked with a knife. They are not the same, they are not kind of the same and they are not in any way what so ever similar.
I mean... they're not the exact same, but overall yes, they're pretty similar.
Do you know any Israelis? I'd guesstimate a good 30% would have absolutely no qualms genociding the entire Palestinian population. The casual racism is everywhere. I don't think it's surprising to see some cheer when a palestinian is gunned down.
They're not at all the same and I don't see how anyone can possibly see them as similar.
I'm talking only about the 14 year old. I was paywalled on the NYT article so don't feel qualified to judge.
Quote from: Tamas on October 22, 2023, 12:05:55 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2023, 09:12:50 AMQuote from: mongers on October 22, 2023, 08:44:25 AMQuote from: garbon on October 22, 2023, 07:19:49 AMTalking out your ass is most like it.
:blink:
What so hard to understand, there are probably two dozen Isreali-Americans/US citizens held hostage by hamas and 500-600 Palestinians-Americans who can't get out of Gaza due to the Rafah crossing being closed to them.
I applaud you for continuing to try to explain basic facts. But very few here want to hear anything but Israel is always right and any criticism of Israel is always wrong.
It is scary to see, but that is the world we live in.
I'm not sure why it is so hard for people to understand that it is possible to both condemn HAMAS and have concern for Palestinians. But again that is now the world we live in.
For me what is frustrating and telling is that there is no end to protests and articles about the tragedy that is inevitably unfolding in Gaza. Yet none of those protests or articles (apart from a sentence or two) let alone separate protests/articles aim to address the problem that Hamas -the government of Gaza- perpetrated a terror attack on hundreds if not thousands of Israeli civilians. That is already forgotten and gone from concerns of the general world. It seems if Israel opted to do nothing and simply return to the status quo, passively waiting for the next such massacre, that would be a-ok with a lot of people.
Why do you say that has been forgotten? Every world leader in the west that I hear says that Israel has a right to defend itself.
And that statement was just recently repeated yesterday, but I pretty much every western government.
I think Tamas is talking about mass demonstrations like the varies pro-Palestinian rallies being reported in various places in the West recently.
What is there to protest about with Hamas?
"We agree with the establishment. Those guys are shits" isn't the stuff protests are made of.
If you can have a "Israel! Stop killing innocents!" march it seems you could also have a "Hamas! Stop killing innocents!" march.
Quote from: Jacob on October 23, 2023, 10:43:10 AMIf you can have a "Israel! Stop killing innocents!" march it seems you could also have a "Hamas! Stop killing innocents!" march.
Except that's clearly pointless. They're a terrorist group controlling an open air prison and the government is already in agreement with the position that they're very naughty boys.
With Israel on the other hand they are still a democracy, they're a normalish country with a functional economy, and in theory influencable by western pressure, and western governments do give them too much leeway.
Quote from: Josquius on October 23, 2023, 10:33:06 AMWhat is there to protest about with Hamas?
"We agree with the establishment. Those guys are shits" isn't the stuff protests are made of.
I regularly see anti-Iranian Government demonstrations in Stockholm.
After seeing some clips of bomb hits in Gaza I'm less inclined to use the term open air prison. It's not exactly Gedi Prime.
@Squeeze: how about the possibility of influencing Palestinian and broader Arab public opinion that supports Hamas?
Quote from: Josquius on October 23, 2023, 10:47:31 AMQuote from: Jacob on October 23, 2023, 10:43:10 AMIf you can have a "Israel! Stop killing innocents!" march it seems you could also have a "Hamas! Stop killing innocents!" march.
Except that's clearly pointless. They're a terrorist group controlling an open air prison and the government is already in agreement with the position that they're very naughty boys.
With Israel on the other hand they are still a democracy, they're a normalish country with a functional economy, and in theory influencable by western pressure, and western governments do give them too much leeway.
So it's pointless to protest against violent evil organisations? Gotcha'
I went to a few pro-Ukrainian, anti-Russian demonstrations myself - in spite of Russia being about as democratic as Gaza.
I don't buy that argument, Josq.
... especially as Hamas - and the Palestine cause in general - clearly puts stock in Western popular reactions.
Showing that decapitating babies and parading the naked corpses of recently killed women through the streets lower supports for their cause is absolutely worthwhile, IMO.
Quote from: Jacob on October 23, 2023, 10:31:54 AMI think Tamas is talking about mass demonstrations like the varies pro-Palestinian rallies being reported in various places in the West recently.
Yes, and that is what I am also addressing. Why would anyone think the fact Israel is responding to the attack from HAMAS has been forgotten. It is repeated on a daily basis.
Also, to unpack Tamas Equating Hamas with a government. It is not. It is terrorist organization and designated as such by most if not all Western governments.
I had a social event this weekend with a lot of leftists from, amongst other places, Malmö. The capital of Jew-hatred and a very muslim-heavy city.
In that circle Israel was talked about, laughed at and joked about as Jewish nazi babykillers. Hamas is right to protest.
I did not say anything as that would have made me persona non grata. Today I read about children getting their eyes gouged out in front of their parent and the vice versa by Hamas.
I would guess that protests in the west against Israel is probably very very very heavy with Hamas-supporters. And useful idiots.
Quote from: Tamas on October 23, 2023, 11:04:31 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 23, 2023, 10:47:31 AMQuote from: Jacob on October 23, 2023, 10:43:10 AMIf you can have a "Israel! Stop killing innocents!" march it seems you could also have a "Hamas! Stop killing innocents!" march.
Except that's clearly pointless. They're a terrorist group controlling an open air prison and the government is already in agreement with the position that they're very naughty boys.
With Israel on the other hand they are still a democracy, they're a normalish country with a functional economy, and in theory influencable by western pressure, and western governments do give them too much leeway.
So it's pointless to protest against violent evil organisations? Gotcha'
The Palestinian people are a "violent evil organization"?
This is the problem with people having such a simplistic view of what is happening. But I suppose it is a good indicator of why the acts of Israel engaging in collective punishment of everyone in Gaza is being defended here.
To restate again, HAMAS is not the Palestinian people and the Palestinian people are not HAMAS.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2023, 11:28:49 AMQuote from: Tamas on October 23, 2023, 11:04:31 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 23, 2023, 10:47:31 AMQuote from: Jacob on October 23, 2023, 10:43:10 AMIf you can have a "Israel! Stop killing innocents!" march it seems you could also have a "Hamas! Stop killing innocents!" march.
Except that's clearly pointless. They're a terrorist group controlling an open air prison and the government is already in agreement with the position that they're very naughty boys.
With Israel on the other hand they are still a democracy, they're a normalish country with a functional economy, and in theory influencable by western pressure, and western governments do give them too much leeway.
So it's pointless to protest against violent evil organisations? Gotcha'
The Palestinian people are a "violent evil organization"?
This is the problem with people having such a simplistic view of what is happening. But I suppose it is a good indicator of why the acts of Israel engaging in collective punishment of everyone in Gaza is being defended here.
To restate again, HAMAS is not the Palestinian people and the Palestinian people are not HAMAS.
Woa are we all of a sudden equating Hamas with the Palestinian people? I am confused.
The original post clearly said "Hamas! Stop killing innocents!" march, cc. Seems you're the one equating palestinians with Hamas.
Quote from: Tamas on October 23, 2023, 11:30:47 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2023, 11:28:49 AMQuote from: Tamas on October 23, 2023, 11:04:31 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 23, 2023, 10:47:31 AMQuote from: Jacob on October 23, 2023, 10:43:10 AMIf you can have a "Israel! Stop killing innocents!" march it seems you could also have a "Hamas! Stop killing innocents!" march.
Except that's clearly pointless. They're a terrorist group controlling an open air prison and the government is already in agreement with the position that they're very naughty boys.
With Israel on the other hand they are still a democracy, they're a normalish country with a functional economy, and in theory influencable by western pressure, and western governments do give them too much leeway.
So it's pointless to protest against violent evil organisations? Gotcha'
The Palestinian people are a "violent evil organization"?
This is the problem with people having such a simplistic view of what is happening. But I suppose it is a good indicator of why the acts of Israel engaging in collective punishment of everyone in Gaza is being defended here.
To restate again, HAMAS is not the Palestinian people and the Palestinian people are not HAMAS.
Woa are we all of a sudden equating Hamas with the Palestinian people? I am confused.
So am I. You expressed frustration with the fact that the "government" of Gaza had launched an attack on Israel and that fact went unremarked.
It is clearly an terrorist organization and always has been. The only thing really approaching a governmental organization in Gaza is the UN.
HAMAS simply won a power struggle against other Palestinian groups in the early 2000s and has kept a strangle hold on Gaza every since. Those who suggest that it is in any way a representative government misunderstand the situation.
You are moving the goal posts.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 23, 2023, 11:39:45 AMYou are moving the goal posts.
Indeed. Hamas is not the government of Gaza, they simply took power over Gaza and are ruling it, and when I talked about Hamas I really talked about the Palestinian people since I guess they are the same thing even though they aren't, and Hamas is not even their government they just rule over them.
I am out CC.
Quote from: Tamas on October 22, 2023, 12:05:55 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 22, 2023, 09:12:50 AMQuote from: mongers on October 22, 2023, 08:44:25 AMQuote from: garbon on October 22, 2023, 07:19:49 AMTalking out your ass is most like it.
:blink:
What so hard to understand, there are probably two dozen Isreali-Americans/US citizens held hostage by hamas and 500-600 Palestinians-Americans who can't get out of Gaza due to the Rafah crossing being closed to them.
I applaud you for continuing to try to explain basic facts. But very few here want to hear anything but Israel is always right and any criticism of Israel is always wrong.
It is scary to see, but that is the world we live in.
I'm not sure why it is so hard for people to understand that it is possible to both condemn HAMAS and have concern for Palestinians. But again that is now the world we live in.
For me what is frustrating and telling is that there is no end to protests and articles about the tragedy that is inevitably unfolding in Gaza. Yet none of those protests or articles (apart from a sentence or two) let alone separate protests/articles aim to address the problem that Hamas -the government of Gaza- perpetrated a terror attack on hundreds if not thousands of Israeli civilians. That is already forgotten and gone from concerns of the general world. It seems if Israel opted to do nothing and simply return to the status quo, passively waiting for the next such massacre, that would be a-ok with a lot of people.
Tamas, if you did not mean to call them the government of Gaza, that is fine. I accept that you mispoke.
But I can only respond to what you wrote.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2023, 11:25:50 AMYes, and that is what I am also addressing. Why would anyone think the fact Israel is responding to the attack from HAMAS has been forgotten. It is repeated on a daily basis.
Yes. But there's a significant amount of denialism that it happened, that it happened as reported or that it was done by Hamas. It's very, very present all over social media.
For example, Asa Winstanley who's been published in The Guardian (many years ago), is a regular speaker at various left events and is author of a book on Corbyn called Weaponising Anti-Semitism posted this today:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F9IOEPBWgAAuWA3?format=jpg&name=small)
Edit: And to be clear this is a guy who's been speaking the last few months at music festivals and events hosted in Meeting Houses - I have no doubt he'll be back at those events soon.
This is the reason the IDF today showed 100 journalists footage, primarily from Go-Pro cameras worn by Hamas attackers, in the hope that that type of reporting will be able to counter denialism. I think in the context of this much and this rapid a spread of a denialist conspiracy theory there is value in simply affirming the fact that it happened, that Hamas did it and that they killed and kidnappend people.
QuoteTamas, if you did not mean to call them the government of Gaza, that is fine. I accept that you mispoke.
I don't really understand how they're not.
Clearly Hamas is the de facto government of Gaza. I'm not sure how anyone can claim otherwise.
Quote from: Threviel on October 23, 2023, 11:26:44 AMI had a social event this weekend with a lot of leftists from, amongst other places, Malmö. The capital of Jew-hatred and a very muslim-heavy city.
In that circle Israel was talked about, laughed at and joked about as Jewish nazi babykillers. Hamas is right to protest.
I did not say anything as that would have made me persona non grata. Today I read about children getting their eyes gouged out in front of their parent and the vice versa by Hamas.
I would guess that protests in the west against Israel is probably very very very heavy with Hamas-supporters. And useful idiots.
Being the son of a European and having spent a large % of the first 25 years of my life over in Euroland, something that I found really surprising there was how you had a broad agreement that things like Nazism and the Holocaust were great, inexcusable evil--but massively more "casual antisemitism" than I have ever seen in the United States. To a degree I think most Americans would find surprising.
However, that part of my life is way in the rearview mirror now--so my personal experiences are a good 25 years out of date or more, I think I assumed on some level contemporary Europe was much less antisemitic than what I saw back in the 80s/90s, but sounds like maybe not.
Obviously Hamas has nothing to do with Gaza. The entire population of Gaza is made up of wide-eyed orphans asking for another bowl of gruel.
Quote from: Tamas on October 23, 2023, 11:42:21 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on October 23, 2023, 11:39:45 AMYou are moving the goal posts.
Indeed. Hamas is not the government of Gaza, they simply took power over Gaza and are ruling it, and when I talked about Hamas I really talked about the Palestinian people since I guess they are the same thing even though they aren't, and Hamas is not even their government they just rule over them.
I am out CC.
They are the government of Gaza the same way Saddam Hussein was the leader of Iraq, the same way the Talebans governed Afghanistan in 2001, the same way Khadafi governed Lybia from 1969 to 2011.
I'm not aware of the US intentionally bombing all the civilians in an area when they were targeted by these governments.
Poll: 80% of Israelis say Netanyahu must take public responsibility for Oct. 7 failures (https://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-80-of-israelis-say-netanyahu-must-take-public-responsibility-for-oct-7-failures/)
QuotePM still hasn't said publicly that he will shoulder blame; 69% of Likud voters think he should; Yesh Atid MK criticizes leader Lapid, says party needs to join emergency government
The vast majority of Israelis believe Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should publicly accept responsibility for the staggering failures that led to Hamas's devastating onslaught on October 7, according to an opinion poll by the Maariv newspaper published Friday.
Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi and Shin Bet head Ronen Bar have already taken such responsibility, as have Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.
Eighty percent of Israelis said Netanyahu, who has not made any public statements accepting responsibility, should follow suit, including 69% of those who voted for the premier's Likud party in last year's election, according to the survey.
Only 8% of the general public think he should not.
Asked who is better suited to be prime minister, 49% picked National Unity party leader Benny Gantz and only 28% picked Netanyahu, with the rest undecided.
Regarding the war in Gaza against the Hamas terror group, 65% of Israelis support a ground offensive in the Strip, while 21% oppose it.
Not going to happen, but interesting nonetheless.
Additionally, 51% backed a large-scale military operation on the northern front following increasing skirmishes with Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, while 30% want a limited operation.
Asked who they would vote for had elections been held today, the poll again gave abysmal grades to the current coalition — 43 seats compared to their current 64 — with Gantz's party alone soaring to 40 seats from its current 12.
The survey was conducted on October 18 and 19 by the Lazar Institute, along with Panel4All, among 510 respondents constituting a representative sample of adult Israelis. The margin of error was 4.3%.
With Gantz's National Unity party now a member of Netanyahu's emergency wartime government, a senior member of Opposition Leader Yair Lapid's Yesh Atid party criticized his party chief on Friday for refusing to join.
Lapid has declined to join forces with the coalition unless it removes key security-related authorities held by far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir. The coalition has not considered making such a move.
"I hope we enter. I'm doing everything so that we enter the unity government, I think we need to be there," Yesh Atid MK Elazar Stern told Channel 12 news.
Asked if Lapid has erred, Stern replied: "Ask him, I think we need to enter," adding that the answers he has received from the opposition chief on the matter haven't satisfied him.
Last week, Lapid said it's still necessary to "take the extremists out of the government of extremists," and pointed to Ben Gvir and Smotrich, saying their presence in the security cabinet is "no way to make decisions."
The national emergency government has formed a smaller war cabinet — including Gantz and representatives of his party — which is entrusted with powers to set wartime policy and give operational and strategic directives to the security forces.
Lapid has called this "a structure that can't work, it'll just add to the mess," because "instead of one cabinet, [there are] two cabinets that will clash."
Additionally, Lapid has said that the October 7 massacre — which saw at least 1,500 terrorists burst across the border into Israel from the Gaza Strip, killing some 1,400 people and seizing 200-250 hostages of all ages under the cover of a deluge of thousands of rockets fired at Israeli towns and cities — was a "failure without reparation."
Lapid said those "who started the failure can't fix it."
Quote from: Barrister on October 23, 2023, 11:59:52 AMClearly Hamas is the de facto government of Gaza. I'm not sure how anyone can claim otherwise.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2023, 11:57:18 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2023, 11:25:50 AMYes, and that is what I am also addressing. Why would anyone think the fact Israel is responding to the attack from HAMAS has been forgotten. It is repeated on a daily basis.
Yes. But there's a significant amount of denialism that it happened, that it happened as reported or that it was done by Hamas. It's very, very present all over social media.
For example, Asa Winstanley who's been published in The Guardian (many years ago), is a regular speaker at various left events and is author of a book on Corbyn called Weaponising Anti-Semitism posted this today:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F9IOEPBWgAAuWA3?format=jpg&name=small)
Edit: And to be clear this is a guy who's been speaking the last few months at music festivals and events hosted in Meeting Houses - I have no doubt he'll be back at those events soon.
This is the reason the IDF today showed 100 journalists footage, primarily from Go-Pro cameras worn by Hamas attackers, in the hope that that type of reporting will be able to counter denialism. I think in the context of this much and this rapid a spread of a denialist conspiracy theory there is value in simply affirming the fact that it happened, that Hamas did it and that they killed and kidnappend people.
QuoteTamas, if you did not mean to call them the government of Gaza, that is fine. I accept that you mispoke.
I don't really understand how they're not.
The fact that there is an active misinformation campaign going on which denies HAMAS carried out the attacks is a serious but different issue.
As to your second point, how is it that an entity can at the same time be an illegal terrorist organization AND a legal government? How can it be that an illegal terrorist organization who happens to exert control over a territory, no matter what intimidation or threats they might use to exert that power, is all of a sudden given some form of legitimacy as a government?
They are terrorists. By definition they maintain power through terrorism. Please explain why you think they can be both a legitimate government (especially since there have been no elections in about 20 years) and an unlawful terrorist organization?
Quote from: viper37 on October 23, 2023, 12:23:01 PMQuote from: Tamas on October 23, 2023, 11:42:21 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on October 23, 2023, 11:39:45 AMYou are moving the goal posts.
Indeed. Hamas is not the government of Gaza, they simply took power over Gaza and are ruling it, and when I talked about Hamas I really talked about the Palestinian people since I guess they are the same thing even though they aren't, and Hamas is not even their government they just rule over them.
I am out CC.
They are the government of Gaza the same way Saddam Hussein was the leader of Iraq, the same way the Talebans governed Afghanistan in 2001, the same way Khadafi governed Lybia from 1969 to 2011.
I'm not aware of the US intentionally bombing all the civilians in an area when they were targeted by these governments.
Right, that is the very point.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 23, 2023, 12:01:15 PMObviously Hamas has nothing to do with Gaza. The entire population of Gaza is made up of wide-eyed orphans asking for another bowl of gruel.
Do you think that every Palestinian man, women and child in Gaza is a member or supporter of HAMAS?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2023, 12:49:00 PMThe fact that there is an active misinformation campaign going on which denies HAMAS carried out the attacks is a serious but different issue.
I'm not sure misinformation is the right framing for this.
QuoteAs to your second point, how is it that an entity can at the same time be an illegal terrorist organization AND a legal government? How can it be that an illegal terrorist organization who happens to exert control over a territory, no matter what intimidation or threats they might use to exert that power, is all of a sudden given some form of legitimacy as a government?
Illegal to whom? But I'd lean more to the state as an authority that successfully claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a given space. Hamas won an election, in a subsequent civil war they ousted their political rivals and since then (with some brief exceptions when there were attempts at Palestine-wide rapprochement), they have formed the government.
There's no moral character or judgement in whether someone is a government or not.
QuoteThey are terrorists. By definition they maintain power through terrorism. Please explain why you think they can be both a legitimate government (especially since there have been no elections in about 20 years) and an unlawful terrorist organization?
You don't need elections to be a legitimate governments and legitimate governments can maintain power through terror. Legitimate governments exist outside the west and they existed before universal suffrage. Legitimate governance is not an innovation that we've only achieved in the last century (and arguably the vast majority of the human experience has been government maintained by terror, or at least threat).
Additionally in the context of what Hamas would argue which is that it is a war of national liberation there are many examples of states that are terrorists to what they perceive as their oppressor (and collaborators), but that also set up state organisations (including the coercive power of the state) on the people they claim to represent. This was true in post-1916 Ireland or in FLN Algeria, for example - which are both planting bombs, engaging in guerilla warfare and establishing shadow courts and tax collection systems. It is part of both claiming their legitimacy and denying it to their occupying power..
Quote from: Tamas on October 23, 2023, 11:30:47 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2023, 11:28:49 AMQuote from: Tamas on October 23, 2023, 11:04:31 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 23, 2023, 10:47:31 AMQuote from: Jacob on October 23, 2023, 10:43:10 AMIf you can have a "Israel! Stop killing innocents!" march it seems you could also have a "Hamas! Stop killing innocents!" march.
Except that's clearly pointless. They're a terrorist group controlling an open air prison and the government is already in agreement with the position that they're very naughty boys.
With Israel on the other hand they are still a democracy, they're a normalish country with a functional economy, and in theory influencable by western pressure, and western governments do give them too much leeway.
So it's pointless to protest against violent evil organisations? Gotcha'
The Palestinian people are a "violent evil organization"?
This is the problem with people having such a simplistic view of what is happening. But I suppose it is a good indicator of why the acts of Israel engaging in collective punishment of everyone in Gaza is being defended here.
To restate again, HAMAS is not the Palestinian people and the Palestinian people are not HAMAS.
Woa are we all of a sudden equating Hamas with the Palestinian people? I am confused.
That's a classic rhetorical trick used by reflexive contrarians: try to twist the other side's argument into something it is not. Also known as "the Strawman Fallacy." Ignore it as having no intellectual weight.
QuoteI went to a few pro-Ukrainian, anti-Russian demonstrations myself - in spite of Russia being about as democratic as Gaza.
I don't buy that argument, Josq.
Except with Ukraine there absolutely is a change in policy western governments can make - more support for Ukraine, more sanctions and seizure of assets for Russia.
It's a situation where the west putting more weight behind Ukraine absolutely can make a difference.
With Hamas the government is already 100% behind Israel and there's not any practical help they actually need.
Quote from: Tamas on October 23, 2023, 11:04:31 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 23, 2023, 10:47:31 AMQuote from: Jacob on October 23, 2023, 10:43:10 AMIf you can have a "Israel! Stop killing innocents!" march it seems you could also have a "Hamas! Stop killing innocents!" march.
Except that's clearly pointless. They're a terrorist group controlling an open air prison and the government is already in agreement with the position that they're very naughty boys.
With Israel on the other hand they are still a democracy, they're a normalish country with a functional economy, and in theory influencable by western pressure, and western governments do give them too much leeway.
So it's pointless to protest against violent evil organisations? Gotcha'
It is when the government is already firmly against them and there's not much else they can do.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2023, 01:07:18 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2023, 12:49:00 PMThe fact that there is an active misinformation campaign going on which denies HAMAS carried out the attacks is a serious but different issue.
I'm not sure misinformation is the right framing for this.
QuoteAs to your second point, how is it that an entity can at the same time be an illegal terrorist organization AND a legal government? How can it be that an illegal terrorist organization who happens to exert control over a territory, no matter what intimidation or threats they might use to exert that power, is all of a sudden given some form of legitimacy as a government?
Illegal to whom? But I'd lean more to the state as an authority that successfully claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a given space. Hamas won an election, in a subsequent civil war they ousted their political rivals and since then (with some brief exceptions when there were attempts at Palestine-wide rapprochement), they have formed the government.
There's no moral character or judgement in whether someone is a government or not.
QuoteThey are terrorists. By definition they maintain power through terrorism. Please explain why you think they can be both a legitimate government (especially since there have been no elections in about 20 years) and an unlawful terrorist organization?
You don't need elections to be a legitimate governments and legitimate governments can maintain power through terror. Legitimate governments exist outside the west and they existed before universal suffrage. Legitimate governance is not an innovation that we've only achieved in the last century (and arguably the vast majority of the human experience has been government maintained by terror, or at least threat).
Additionally in the context of what Hamas would argue which is that it is a war of national liberation there are many examples of states that are terrorists to what they perceive as their oppressor (and collaborators), but that also set up state organisations (including the coercive power of the state) on the people they claim to represent. This was true in post-1916 Ireland or in FLN Algeria, for example - which are both planting bombs, engaging in guerilla warfare and establishing shadow courts and tax collection systems. It is part of both claiming their legitimacy and denying it to their occupying power..
1) If not misinformation, what is it?
2) I agree. But there is an implication of legitimacy and an implication that the population is responsible for selecting their government in some way. None of that is true of HAMAS now. The argument that the population preferred HAMAS to the alternatives 20 years ago is accurate. But I don't think that translates to an argument that it is a legitimate government representing the will of people now. I think it highly unlikely that anyone other than HAMAS would have supported the terrorist attacks on Israel if asked. And of course HAMAS does not have to ask - because it is not anything other than a terrorist organization.
3) Please explain what you mean by "legitimate". You have lost me.
edit: I also note that some of those who insist on characterizing HAMAS as being a "government" are also justifying the punishment of all in Gaza on that basis.
On 2 you can go back and see the discussion on Hamas support. A large plurality or a small majority of all Palestinians supported Hamas before the attack. The triumph they had over the spoils of the attack also implies large support.
You can argue uncertainty all the way to Descartes if you want, but that only makes it seem like you are cherry-picking data.
Quote from: Jacob on October 23, 2023, 11:13:42 AMShowing that decapitating babies and parading the naked corpses of recently killed women through the streets lower supports for their cause is absolutely worthwhile, IMO.
problem is that it clearly doesn't seem to matter looking at the hordes coming out to not protest against Hamas
Quote from: ThrevielI had a social event this weekend with a lot of leftists from, amongst other places, Malmö. The capital of Jew-hatred and a very muslim-heavy city.
The inability, or unwillingness, of western european politicians of the last 50 years to not keep better track of who entered our countries and with how many is going to end up as nothing less than a massive disaster.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2023, 12:49:00 PMAs to your second point, how is it that an entity can at the same time be an illegal terrorist organization AND a legal government? How can it be that an illegal terrorist organization who happens to exert control over a territory, no matter what intimidation or threats they might use to exert that power, is all of a sudden given some form of legitimacy as a government?
They are terrorists. By definition they maintain power through terrorism. Please explain why you think they can be both a legitimate government (especially since there have been no elections in about 20 years) and an unlawful terrorist organization?
There is no definition of terrorism that requires terrorists "by definition" to use force to maintain power. Hamas is not illegal in Gaza, so the argument that they cannot be a government because they are somehow "illegal" fails on the face of it.
Hamas politicians collect the taxes, write the laws, hire and pay all of the government employees, provide police, fire, etc services, run the government-controlled public services like gas, electricity, etc, decide the educational policies, have their own foreign policy and diplomats, etc. That you can claim that not only is it not a government, but that "Those who suggest that it is in any way a representative government misunderstand the situation" pretty clearly demonstrates that it is you who "misunderstands the situation."
I would, in fact, argue that, had there been a fair election in Gaza on or before Oct 6, Hamas would have won it handily. Hamas is popular in Gaza not only because it has controlled the education in Gaza for 16 years (indoctrinating the youth of a very youth-majority region) but also because it has delivered as a government. Gazans didn't necessarily like Hamas's provocations of Israel, but they very much liked the effectiveness and relative honesty of their government.
Hamas is not the first, last, or only government to rule without international recognition.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2023, 01:20:36 PM1) If not misinformation, what is it?
Honestly I think the denial that it happened or opinions like that are basically largely driven by anti-semitism. That's why I think it is important to acknowledge what happened and that doesn't preclude any opinion from anti-Zionism to simply thinking Israel's current approach is wrong.
Quote2) I agree. But there is an implication of legitimacy and an implication that the population is responsible for selecting their government in some way. None of that is true of HAMAS now. The argument that the population preferred HAMAS to the alternatives 20 years ago is accurate. But I don't think that translates to an argument that it is a legitimate government representing the will of people now. I think it highly unlikely that anyone other than HAMAS would have supported the terrorist attacks on Israel if asked. And of course HAMAS does not have to ask - because it is not anything other than a terrorist organization.
But again - a terrorist organisation to whom? I think this is a very Western perspective. Hamas is not identified as a terrorist organisation by, for example, the UN (or countries that follow the UN list) or, say, India (or indeed any of the BRICS). Many countries (and I think this was the case with the EU and UK until the 2010s) may view the military wing of Hamas as terrorists, but not the political wing.
I think it's simply the facts of how Hamas came to hold power in Gaza. I don't think anything about that implies that the population are responsible - as I noted earlier half the population of Gaza are under 18.
Quote3) Please explain what you mean by "legitimate". You have lost me.
So if government is a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a territory, I think legitimacy is the justification of that use of force or coercive power and its ability to be enforced and/or followed voluntarily. Personally I'd argue Hamas' legitimacy in Gaza derives far more from its role - on its own terms - as a revolutionary/national liberation force than from an election 20 years ago.
I still don't buy it, Josq. Attending demonstrations are not solely about influencing your democratically elected government's course of action.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2023, 01:44:05 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2023, 01:20:36 PM1) If not misinformation, what is it?
Honestly I think the denial that it happened or opinions like that are basically largely driven by anti-semitism. That's why I think it is important to acknowledge what happened and that doesn't preclude any opinion from anti-Zionism to simply thinking Israel's current approach is wrong.
Quote2) I agree. But there is an implication of legitimacy and an implication that the population is responsible for selecting their government in some way. None of that is true of HAMAS now. The argument that the population preferred HAMAS to the alternatives 20 years ago is accurate. But I don't think that translates to an argument that it is a legitimate government representing the will of people now. I think it highly unlikely that anyone other than HAMAS would have supported the terrorist attacks on Israel if asked. And of course HAMAS does not have to ask - because it is not anything other than a terrorist organization.
But again - a terrorist organisation to whom? I think this is a very Western perspective. Hamas is not identified as a terrorist organisation by, for example, the UN (or countries that follow the UN list) or, say, India (or indeed any of the BRICS). Many countries (and I think this was the case with the EU and UK until the 2010s) may view the military wing of Hamas as terrorists, but not the political wing.
I think it's simply the facts of how Hamas came to hold power in Gaza. I don't think anything about that implies that the population are responsible - as I noted earlier half the population of Gaza are under 18.
Quote3) Please explain what you mean by "legitimate". You have lost me.
So if government is a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a territory, I think legitimacy is the justification of that use of force or coercive power and its ability to be enforced and/or followed voluntarily. Personally I'd argue Hamas' legitimacy in Gaza derives far more from its role - on its own terms - as a revolutionary/national liberation force than from an election 20 years ago.
1) We are on dangerous ground when speculating about the intentions of those engaged in a misinformation campaign. It might be anti-Semitism, but isn't it more likely that the intent is to sway public opinion away from Israel and toward HAMAS?
2) I don't understand your question. The West has designated HAMAS as a terrorist organization under the laws of each of the countries that has made that designation. I am not sure how someone in the West can then make the argument that they are not a terrorist organization but instead is a legitimate governing authority. I can see how someone who does not recognize that designation might make the argument that HAMAS is not a terrorist organization and is a legitimate governing authority. But we are talking about the characterization that was made on this forum, by people who do assert (correctly) that HAMAS is a terrorist organization. Lastly, while it is true that not all nations of the world have designated HAMAS is a terrorist organization, that rather makes my point. For those who do have such a designation, it is not consistent to say it is a legitimate government. For those who do not treat HAMAS as a terrorist organization, they are justified in dealing with HAMAS. That is why the UN is in Gaza.
But those two things are mutually exclusive. If the UN did designate HAMAS as a terrorist organization then the UN could not work with HAMAS to provide the aid and support it does in Gaza. But we have people who are saying both things are true at the same time - it is both a terrorist organization and a government. Pick a lane. :P
3) I agree. Where I think we disagree is the extent to which the Palestinian population in Gaza is doing anything voluntarily. That is a very loaded word that seems particularly problematic given the history of Gaza.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2023, 12:52:58 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 23, 2023, 12:23:01 PMQuote from: Tamas on October 23, 2023, 11:42:21 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on October 23, 2023, 11:39:45 AMYou are moving the goal posts.
Indeed. Hamas is not the government of Gaza, they simply took power over Gaza and are ruling it, and when I talked about Hamas I really talked about the Palestinian people since I guess they are the same thing even though they aren't, and Hamas is not even their government they just rule over them.
I am out CC.
They are the government of Gaza the same way Saddam Hussein was the leader of Iraq, the same way the Talebans governed Afghanistan in 2001, the same way Khadafi governed Lybia from 1969 to 2011.
I'm not aware of the US intentionally bombing all the civilians in an area when they were targeted by these governments.
Right, that is the very point.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 23, 2023, 12:01:15 PMObviously Hamas has nothing to do with Gaza. The entire population of Gaza is made up of wide-eyed orphans asking for another bowl of gruel.
Do you think that every Palestinian man, women and child in Gaza is a member or supporter of HAMAS?
No. It's probably closer to the support that the Nazi party had in Germany.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2023, 02:38:07 PM1) We are on dangerous ground when speculating about the intentions of those engaged in a misinformation campaign. It might be anti-Semitism, but isn't it more likely that the intent is to sway public opinion away from Israel and toward HAMAS?
That's fair on motivation - but I think the impact on the Jewish community and how they are experiencing denial of atrocities against Jews in Israel, or claims that it wasn't Hamas but actually, say, a botched IDF operation is that it's making them feel vulnerable, unsafe and again (as happened after the pogroms and after the Holocaust) that Jewish suffering is not believed. As Hugo Rifkind, who is not in any sense a practicing Jew, put it: "But even from whwre I'm sitting, something has dramatically changed for British Jews in the past fortnight and I'm not sure how we even begin to fix it." Hate crimes against Jews are up over 1,000% in the UK (and Islamophobic hate crimes are up over 100%).
That's why I think it costs very little but can have an impact to affirm that the atrocity happened even if you go on to absolutely support a one state solution, or liberation or whatever else position. I mentioned it before and didn't post it as I think 90% of the forum will passionately dislike this piece - as he is an anti-Zionist (he is a problematic writer in other ways) but I think there is a lot to this:
https://samkriss.substack.com/p/but-not-like-this
Quote2) I don't understand your question. The West has designated HAMAS as a terrorist organization under the laws of each of the countries that has made that designation. I am not sure how someone in the West can then make the argument that they are not a terrorist organization but instead is a legitimate governing authority. I can see how someone who does not recognize that designation might make the argument that HAMAS is not a terrorist organization and is a legitimate governing authority. But we are talking about the characterization that was made on this forum, by people who do assert (correctly) that HAMAS is a terrorist organization. Lastly, while it is true that not all nations of the world have designated HAMAS is a terrorist organization, that rather makes my point. For those who do have such a designation, it is not consistent to say it is a legitimate government. For those who do not treat HAMAS as a terrorist organization, they are justified in dealing with HAMAS. That is why the UN is in Gaza.
But those two things are mutually exclusive. If the UN did designate HAMAS as a terrorist organization then the UN could not work with HAMAS to provide the aid and support it does in Gaza. But we have people who are saying both things are true at the same time - it is both a terrorist organization and a government. Pick a lane. :P
I don't think they are mutually exclusive. The UN is in lots of places where there's humanitarian need it's not because they've usurped the government - in none of those places does the UN have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
I think Hamas is a terrorist organisation and on that I agree with western powers. I think they're also the government of Gaza. Again I don't attach any moral weight or judgement to a government.
Quote3) I agree. Where I think we disagree is the extent to which the Palestinian population in Gaza is doing anything voluntarily. That is a very loaded word that seems particularly problematic given the history of Gaza.
I don't know where you're getting that from what I've said. I don't think it has any bearing on whether Hamas is the government or not. But for what it's worth I think it's obvious the majority of Gazans are not voluntarily doing anything, I think they've got very little agency in this situation and the vast majority are victims.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2023, 02:38:07 PM3) I agree. Where I think we disagree is the extent to which the Palestinian population in Gaza is doing anything voluntarily. That is a very loaded word that seems particularly problematic given the history of Gaza.
So Hamas is holding 200+ Israeli hostages and 2,000,000+ Palestinian hostages.
In both cases, the only effective solution is the total defeat of Hamas as an organization. In both cases, the implementation of that solution poses great risk to the hostages. In fact, the Israeli hostages would benefit more from a "cease fire" because there is some probability many if not most would be released; they are even in more danger than the Palestinian hostages if hostilities deepen. Whereas the only hope for the Palestinian hostages is if Israel follows through on more definitive military action.
If seems to me if we accept your premise, then the best scenario for Gaza Palestinians would be quick and decisive military victory by Israel over Hamas.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2023, 02:53:26 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2023, 02:38:07 PM1) We are on dangerous ground when speculating about the intentions of those engaged in a misinformation campaign. It might be anti-Semitism, but isn't it more likely that the intent is to sway public opinion away from Israel and toward HAMAS?
That's fair on motivation - but I think the impact on the Jewish community and how they are experiencing denial of atrocities against Jews in Israel, or claims that it wasn't Hamas but actually, say, a botched IDF operation is that it's making them feel vulnerable, unsafe and again (as happened after the pogroms and after the Holocaust) that Jewish suffering is not believed. As Hugo Rifkind, who is not in any sense a practicing Jew, put it: "But even from whwre I'm sitting, something has dramatically changed for British Jews in the past fortnight and I'm not sure how we even begin to fix it." Hate crimes against Jews are up over 1,000% in the UK (and Islamophobic hate crimes are up over 100%).
That's why I think it costs very little but can have an impact to affirm that the atrocity happened even if you go on to absolutely support a one state solution, or liberation or whatever else position. I mentioned it before and didn't post it as I think 90% of the forum will passionately dislike this piece - as he is an anti-Zionist (he is a problematic writer in other ways) but I think there is a lot to this:
https://samkriss.substack.com/p/but-not-like-this
Quote2) I don't understand your question. The West has designated HAMAS as a terrorist organization under the laws of each of the countries that has made that designation. I am not sure how someone in the West can then make the argument that they are not a terrorist organization but instead is a legitimate governing authority. I can see how someone who does not recognize that designation might make the argument that HAMAS is not a terrorist organization and is a legitimate governing authority. But we are talking about the characterization that was made on this forum, by people who do assert (correctly) that HAMAS is a terrorist organization. Lastly, while it is true that not all nations of the world have designated HAMAS is a terrorist organization, that rather makes my point. For those who do have such a designation, it is not consistent to say it is a legitimate government. For those who do not treat HAMAS as a terrorist organization, they are justified in dealing with HAMAS. That is why the UN is in Gaza.
But those two things are mutually exclusive. If the UN did designate HAMAS as a terrorist organization then the UN could not work with HAMAS to provide the aid and support it does in Gaza. But we have people who are saying both things are true at the same time - it is both a terrorist organization and a government. Pick a lane. :P
I don't think they are mutually exclusive. The UN is in lots of places where there's humanitarian need it's not because they've usurped the government - in none of those places does the UN have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
I think Hamas is a terrorist organisation and on that I agree with western powers. I think they're also the government of Gaza. Again I don't attach any moral weight or judgement to a government.
Quote3) I agree. Where I think we disagree is the extent to which the Palestinian population in Gaza is doing anything voluntarily. That is a very loaded word that seems particularly problematic given the history of Gaza.
I don't know where you're getting that from what I've said. I don't think it has any bearing on whether Hamas is the government or not. But for what it's worth I think it's obvious the majority of Gazans are not voluntarily doing anything, I think they've got very little agency in this situation and the vast majority are victims.
On the second point, I don't think you've addressed what I said.
On the third point, if you look back at what you said, you use the word voluntary, which is what I addressed. In any event, for those who advocate for the collective punishment of Palestinians, with in Gaza, there sure seems to be an undercurrent of justification, based on an assertion that Hamas is simply curing out the will of all of the people of Gaza.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 23, 2023, 03:19:24 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2023, 02:38:07 PM3) I agree. Where I think we disagree is the extent to which the Palestinian population in Gaza is doing anything voluntarily. That is a very loaded word that seems particularly problematic given the history of Gaza.
So Hamas is holding 200+ Israeli hostages and 2,000,000+ Palestinian hostages.
In both cases, the only effective solution is the total defeat of Hamas as an organization. In both cases, the implementation of that solution poses great risk to the hostages. In fact, the Israeli hostages would benefit more from a "cease fire" because there is some probability many if not most would be released; they are even in more danger than the Palestinian hostages if hostilities deepen. Whereas the only hope for the Palestinian hostages is if Israel follows through on more definitive military action.
If seems to me if we accept your premise, then the best scenario for Gaza Palestinians would be quick and decisive military victory by Israel over Hamas.
I agree entirely. None of that is inconsistent with the positions I have taken. But that is not what is happening. Instead, what is happening is a collective punishment and siege of Gaza.
What are the key elements that make (or could make) Israeli actions a collective punishment of Palestinians as opposed to a legitimate military actions?
There are obvious reasons for Hamas - and potentially anyone supportive of Palestinian nationalism - to cast any action Israel takes at this point as "collective punishment".
Conversely, there are obvious reasons for people supportive of the Israeli state to cast their actions as not being collective punishment, while there are also elements within Israel (and their supporters) calling explicitly for what is basically just that.
But where is the line drawn, more or less? My impression is that Israel is now allowing some emergency aid in, and that the water has been turned back on. Nonetheless, the charges of "collective punishment" have not abated. If what Israel is doing is "collective punishment", what would it have to stop doing and what could it continue doing - in the current situation - for its reaction to Hamas to be not "collective punishment"?
The NYT has published a mea culpa over its coverage of the hospital incident
Quote from: Razgovory on October 23, 2023, 02:38:20 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2023, 12:52:58 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 23, 2023, 12:23:01 PMQuote from: Tamas on October 23, 2023, 11:42:21 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on October 23, 2023, 11:39:45 AMYou are moving the goal posts.
Indeed. Hamas is not the government of Gaza, they simply took power over Gaza and are ruling it, and when I talked about Hamas I really talked about the Palestinian people since I guess they are the same thing even though they aren't, and Hamas is not even their government they just rule over them.
I am out CC.
They are the government of Gaza the same way Saddam Hussein was the leader of Iraq, the same way the Talebans governed Afghanistan in 2001, the same way Khadafi governed Lybia from 1969 to 2011.
I'm not aware of the US intentionally bombing all the civilians in an area when they were targeted by these governments.
Right, that is the very point.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 23, 2023, 12:01:15 PMObviously Hamas has nothing to do with Gaza. The entire population of Gaza is made up of wide-eyed orphans asking for another bowl of gruel.
Do you think that every Palestinian man, women and child in Gaza is a member or supporter of HAMAS?
No. It's probably closer to the support that the Nazi party had in Germany.
I have no way of judging what either of those are. Do you have any data which should suggest the answer for either?
Nazis got about 40% of the vote in Germany, Hamas got about 40% of the vote in Gaza. I know last year Hamas 53% approval rating in all of Palestine after a confrontation with Israel. Fighting the Jews is very popular in Palestine. Anyway, nobody said that the Nazis didn't represent Germany.
I'll walk back my claim that Hamas would win a fair election in Gaza before Oct 7. Here's a series of poll results from the Washington Institute showing Gazan opinions over time:
(https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/sites/default/files/2023-10/Screenshot%202023-10-10%20174315.png)
Source: Polls Show Majority of Gazans Were Against Breaking Ceasefire (https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-show-majority-gazans-were-against-breaking-ceasefire-hamas-and-hezbollah)
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy seems to have a decent blend of leadership from across the moderate portion of the political spectrum (some serve in the GW Bush administration others in the Obama administration). It publishes in Arabic and Persian as well as English, though its leadership is American. Seems a legit source and its results surprised me but also changed my mind.
Quote from: grumbler on October 23, 2023, 04:56:35 PMI'll walk back my claim that Hamas would win a fair election in Gaza before Oct 7. Here's a series of poll results from the Washington Institute showing Gazan opinions over time:
(https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/sites/default/files/2023-10/Screenshot%202023-10-10%20174315.png)
Source: Polls Show Majority of Gazans Were Against Breaking Ceasefire (https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-show-majority-gazans-were-against-breaking-ceasefire-hamas-and-hezbollah)
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy seems to have a decent blend of leadership from across the moderate portion of the political spectrum (some serve in the GW Bush administration others in the Obama administration). It publishes in Arabic and Persian as well as English, though its leadership is American. Seems a legit source and its results surprised me but also changed my mind.
Thanks for this. That is interesting data.
Quote from: Jacob on October 23, 2023, 04:18:38 PMWhat are the key elements that make (or could make) Israeli actions a collective punishment of Palestinians as opposed to a legitimate military actions?
There are obvious reasons for Hamas - and potentially anyone supportive of Palestinian nationalism - to cast any action Israel takes at this point as "collective punishment".
Conversely, there are obvious reasons for people supportive of the Israeli state to cast their actions as not being collective punishment, while there are also elements within Israel (and their supporters) calling explicitly for what is basically just that.
But where is the line drawn, more or less? My impression is that Israel is now allowing some emergency aid in, and that the water has been turned back on. Nonetheless, the charges of "collective punishment" have not abated. If what Israel is doing is "collective punishment", what would it have to stop doing and what could it continue doing - in the current situation - for its reaction to Hamas to be not "collective punishment"?
The argument that Israel is now engaging collective punishment was made by Professor Byers. I won't repeat what he said, I posted both his interview and his piece in the Globe and Mail.
But among the points he made was shutting off the water supply for all of Gaza.
I'm under the impression that the water supply is back on?
Israel says it is restarting water supply to Southern Gaza (Oct 15) (https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-says-it-is-restarting-water-supply-to-southern-gaza-strip/)
Quote from: Tamas on October 23, 2023, 11:04:31 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 23, 2023, 10:47:31 AMQuote from: Jacob on October 23, 2023, 10:43:10 AMIf you can have a "Israel! Stop killing innocents!" march it seems you could also have a "Hamas! Stop killing innocents!" march.
Except that's clearly pointless. They're a terrorist group controlling an open air prison and the government is already in agreement with the position that they're very naughty boys.
With Israel on the other hand they are still a democracy, they're a normalish country with a functional economy, and in theory influencable by western pressure, and western governments do give them too much leeway.
So it's pointless to protest against violent evil organisations? Gotcha'
There are often protests against Hamas. It never ends well for the protestors.
Quote from: Jacob on October 23, 2023, 05:29:07 PMI'm under the impression that the water supply is back on?
Israel says it is restarting water supply to Southern Gaza (Oct 15) (https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-says-it-is-restarting-water-supply-to-southern-gaza-strip/)
I thought they had reversed that announcement. But if it is indeed being turned back on then I withdraw my characterization of collective punishment.
The CBC this morning was reporting that the lack of fresh water was creating an untenable situation for the population within Gaza.
I'm not following this closely enough to speak with any confidence, hence the question.
I'll have to agree that decision to leave 2 million people without access to clean water - especially if the decision is as simple as turning the tap on/off - seems like collective punishment in the absence of a clear military objective. At this point I don't know what that military objective is other than "Hamas is also in there somewhere" and that does not seem sufficient to me.
I guess it depends on whether you think getting the civilizing population to turn on the ruling class through suffering is a legitimate war tactic. Whether or not that ever really works.
Although if that was the goal, there are better methods to achieve that goal like oopsy doodling the water pipeline with missiles rather than turning off a valve, from a PR perspective.
Denying enemy fighters access to drinking water is a time honored military tactic.
So concretely:
UNICEF says that about 120 new-borns in Gazan hospitals are at risk of dying. There is no electricity in Gaza since Israel shut off the supply. The hospital's back-up generators are about to run out of fuel.
Israel - via senior Nethanyahu advisor Mark Regev - have said that Israel is not going to let any fuel enter Gaza because they expect a significant amount of it will be stolen by Hamas and used to fuel their ongoing attacks on Israel.
Israel's concerns about supplies being stolen by Hamas are, IMO, legitimate enough. I don't see what sort of guarantees Hamas could give that could be trusted, assuming they'd even consider it. Best case scenario, I expect, involves only some of the emergency supplies being "requisitioned" by Hamas for their combat efforts. Worst case, none of the supplies reach the hospitals at all.
On the other hand, any of those newborns dying when hospital equipment runs out of power is directly attributable to Israeli actions cutting electricity and stopping fuel supplies to Gaza.
One possible way to save those babies would be to evacuate them to somewhere with the appropriate equipment - presumably a neighbouring country, if any would have them.
Which then reminds me of one of the of the Canadian victims of the Hamas terror attack. She was a grandmother and peace activist who spent her time as a volunteer driving Palestinians in critical condition from Gaza to Israel for medical treatment only available there. She was shot and killed in her home.
It's all so fucking grim.
And those Palestinian babies don't deserve to die anymore than the Israeli babies murdered by Hamas during their terror attack.
Another interesting polling regarding Palestinians and their opinions on terrorism.
Interesting difference between Gaza and West Bank.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/palestinians-attitudes-about-terrorism
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 24, 2023, 01:08:45 AMDenying enemy fighters access to drinking water is a time honored military tactic.
True enough.
Is there a number of Palestinian civilians - or Palestinian children - dying from thirst and / or from disease due to the lack of potable water - that would make you question the acceptability that tactic in this specific conflict?
Granted, at this point it's warnings of impending catastrophe rather than reported deaths, but at some point the consequences will manifest and there'll be deaths from cholera, dysentery, and plain old dehydration.
I suppose the optimal approach for Israel is to soften up Hamas' resistance by denying them drinking water, but striking before the civilian death toll gets too high, and then restoring drinking water to affected civilians.
But say that goes awry a bit - for military or political or simply logistical reasons - and water is not restored before there's a significant death toll. Is there a number of children dead from lack of drinking water that would cause you to think that it was wrong to employ that time honoured military tactic in this case?
Personally my threshold is pretty damn low on that account, but I recognize that others are more willing to accept civilian and children collateral deaths in pursuit of military objectives.
That said, I also have a hard time picturing what sort of military objectives would have to be met before Israel turns the water back on again, if it goes down the route of accepting civilian deaths from lack of water.
It hasn't happened quite yet, I don't think. Maybe it's all hard-nosed negotiation tactics and posturing. Or maybe Israel will strike decisively before the lack of drinking water leads to a large number of deaths. I suppose we'll see.
I just hope it doesn't turn into a standoff over who has the greatest tolerance for a large number of Palestinian children dying from lack of drinking water.
[And for the record, I have no doubt that Hamas would cheerfully embrace killing Israeli children by depriving them of drinking water as a goal in itself, rather than as a byproduct of pursuing military objectives, were they in a position to do so]
Won't Israeli striking decisively end up with many civilian deaths?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2023, 04:08:07 PMOn the second point, I don't think you've addressed what I said.
I don't think I understand what you've said.
QuoteOn the third point, if you look back at what you said, you use the word voluntary, which is what I addressed. In any event, for those who advocate for the collective punishment of Palestinians, with in Gaza, there sure seems to be an undercurrent of justification, based on an assertion that Hamas is simply curing out the will of all of the people of Gaza.
In the context of a government's legitimacy - I simply mean that they do not have to use coercive power to implement their decisions as a government. It's nothing to do with the will of the people.
QuoteAt this point I don't know what that military objective is other than "Hamas is also in there somewhere" and that does not seem sufficient to me.
I agree - we're almost three weeks from the attack. There is a siege and bombinbgs. Israel has said there are ground raids but otherwise the have hundreds of thousands of reservists on the border I'm still not sure what Israel's intending or how it's going to do it. My suspicion is that's because there's actually not many choices and none of them are palatable.
I think the reported dysfunction of Netanyahu trying to blame the military and big divides etc is an issue. But it goes wider than that, I heard a journalist yesterday talking about the mayor of Ashkelon which is the nearest Israeli city that was affected by the attack doing a fundraising drive because there's been no support from the central government. On the military-civil divdes:
QuoteAnshel Pfeffer אנשיל פפר
@AnshelPfeffer
Netanyahu and sources within the defense establishment are briefing against each other. Netanyahu has been doing it for 2 weeks already, trying to place the sole blame on the IDF and Shin Bet for Hamas' surprise attac. In the last 2 days he's sending, through proxies, a new line>
Netanyahu's new line attack on the generals (thru proxies) is that they don't care enough for the lives of their soldiers and they're prepared to send them into Gaza before the air-force has used bunker-busting bombs to destroy Hamas tunnels there. Now there's counter-briefing >
In the briefing from the defense establishment they're not attacking Netanyahu directly but they're saying they did as ordered, called up reserves, secured Israel's borders and prepared a force for the ground operation which has been waiting at peak-readiness for over a week now>
In other words, the generals are accusing Netanyahu (without actually naming him) of dithering, not taking responsibility and not making overdue decisions on the next stage of the war.
Both sides now trying to reduce tensions. Joint statement by Prime Minister, Defense Minister and IDF:
"We're all working together in tight and complete coordination... Netanyahu, Gallant and Halevi have full and mutual trust" incredible this needs to be said at time of war
You'd almost worry there'll be a ground attack just because in the immediate days after October 7, Israeli officials talked up a ground attack - as opposed to just saaying it was one of the options under consideration. And I think it would likely be worse if there was a ground attack which is why, despite his rhetoric, Netanyahu has always been quite reluctant to authorise that sort of operation - he has preferred bombs and siege. If that's the motivation then it's even worse.
Also I think the attack on October 7 indicates exactly the problem - for Israel to be incredibly surgical and only hit the right targets, you'd need very good intelligence of what's going on in Gaza. The indications are Israeli forces no longer have particularly good local knowledge in Gaza.
QuoteIt's all so fucking grim.
And those Palestinian babies don't deserve to die anymore than the Israeli babies murdered by Hamas during their terror attack.
I agree. I can't see any particular military solution - although so far Israel's not communicated one.
Ultimately and I keep going back to it the only solution to Hamas is an alternative Palestinian interlocutor in Gaza. It is the opposite of what Netanyahu or the Israeli government has done for many years precisely because it means re-opening the idea of a two state solution. For example to bolster the Palestinian Authority as an alternative to Hamas and involve them, with the UN and regional powers (particularly a coerced Qatar), in Gaza in some way de-legitimising Hamas to reduce their political and military role.
I think that's probably the best case at the end of a ground invasion because, there's not going to end up being a pro-Israeli government in Gaza with any legitimacy at least. I think you can also get there diplomatically.
The obstacles to that, I think, are that it would be incredibly difficult for any state to not militarily respond to attacks like on October 7 (beyond the current bombings). I think there is a risk of Israel feeling like it needs to invade having talked about a ground invasion even if it's not sure what it could accomplish or how. And perhaps the biggest problem is that I think it would involve the opposite of what Netanyahu and his coalition partners have spent their time in power doing or wanting.
Jake, isn't water a moot point? I thought they turned it back on around D+2. Makes more sense to focus on the fuel for generators.
I just want to further voice my frustration as opposed to trying to convince anyone, I think everyone have made up their minds already on who the bad guys are in this conflict.
But to perhaps explain why I do no think it's the IDF, here is an example: so on the Hamas/Palestinian/world public opinion side we hear about the IDF indiscriminately bombing civilians for the hell of it (with usually Hamas as the news source), which the IDF denies - and of course I have no way of verifying whether they are just targeting Hamas personnel and installations despite Hamas putting these among civilians, or just shooting at whatever shows up in their crosshairs .
What there does seem to be clear evidence of though is the extraordinary cruelty of Hamas militants against Israeli civilians: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67198270 (Danish journalist explaining what he saw: https://x.com/PiersUncensored/status/1716536352223732131?s=20)
So on one side there is clear evidence of Hamas barbarism. On the other side, there are conflicting claims done by the IDF and the aforementioned Hamas butchers regarding IDF barbarism. I cannot possibly look at these and conclude that the IDF is not the preferred side to emerge victorious from this clusterfuck.
This is a pretty good channel on military tech and military stuff analysis, like Ukraine. Poor guy had to re-edit his latest piece on the Gaza tunnel network because Youtube is censoring videos with the word "Hamas" apparently. So he has to say "HMS" instead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpA5SOEq15c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSqgGtWeTSE
Looks like Israel heard you Jake.
Quote from: HVC on October 24, 2023, 12:21:58 AMI guess it depends on whether you think getting the civilizing population to turn on the ruling class through suffering is a legitimate war tactic. Whether or not that ever really works.
Although if that was the goal, there are better methods to achieve that goal like oopsy doodling the water pipeline with missiles rather than turning off a valve, from a PR perspective.
No, collective punishment is illegal under international law.
Whether or not one agrees with Professor Byers' conclusion that shutting off the water is collective punishment and contrary to international law, one thing that is not controversial is that if it is collective punishment it is contrary to international law.
It appears from reports that the only water entering Gaza is the bottled kind entering through the trucks entering the Southern border.
That appears to be what the Israeli statements were about and of course that was delayed by the Israelis I any event.
But that small amount of water does not begin to meet the needs of the population.
As Professor Byers has said a strong case can be made that Israel is engaging in collective punishment.
Or besieging an enemy-held city.
The main issue with arguments from dishonest people like Byers is they are largely trying to apply terms that have historically only ever been construed in practice as having very specific application, to have broad application, which if applied equally in all conflicts (not just ones where Jews are one of the belligerent parties), would actually criminalize every war fought in the 20th and 21st centuries.
Essentially it is an attempt to phrase any attack on legitimate infrastructural targets that has a military purpose, as "collective punishment" because it harms a lot of civilians who aren't combatants.
That is just not how the word collective punishment has been used previously--and for good reason. A baseline that people should accept is that international law / law of war cannot criminalize the basic operations of warfare. Why? Because attempting to criminalize war won't work, countries have reasons to go to war, if you broadly declare activities that are military in nature and intrinsically part of most wars, you are trying to criminalize the fighting of a war. That may sound neat to an evolved ball of light, but in the real world it just means you're making every war a crime. If every war is a crime, then the participants are going to generally less interested in following the laws of war.
This is why the actual, deliberate way the laws of war have been written have intended to criminalize things that agreeing parties view as immoral and outside the bounds of acceptable warfare.
Collective punishment has historically been confined to a scenario where an occupying power suffers some incident, be it crimes committed by an insurgent group or etc, and decides to punish a whole group of civilians because some portion of them were involved.
Trying to apply the term "collective punishment" to mean "a party attacked across its broadly recognized borders and suffering a large number of dead, deciding to respond with a military invasion into the enemy's territory is collective punishment since only a small portion of the target of the invasion was involved in the attack."
Carried to absurdity this concept of collective punishment would have made illegal the capture of almost every city that was captured in WW2--because basic siege warfare is intrinsic to capturing cities.
What should be even further noted is some of the people crying "collective punishment" aren't just referring to the blockade of supplies as CP, but Israel not freely giving its enemy in a declared war electricity and pumped water, again--this would suggest that the Soviets should have been shipping humanitarian supplies into Berlin during the final battle for Berlin at the end of WW2, or be seen guilty of committing a war crime.
It is predicated on a whole series of distortions of what is permitted in a siege and what it isn't, and how we generally use the term collective punishment.
It is pretty clearly the case Byers was engaging in aspirational advocacy, but certain parties who historically engage in dishonest discussion instead attempt to convert his argument to unassailable "expertise" which is not to be questioned.
Frankly, a not insignificant number of the critics of the IDF's operation seem to adhere to a view of "laws of war" in which wars can only be fought where civilians aren't, and where no civilians are harmed. DGuller mentioned maybe this is a fanciful view of war based on a misunderstanding that wars can be fought as a series of surgical SWAT style raids where almost no civilians are harmed, and anything else is a crime.
That is a nice and pleasant fiction--but we all know that isn't reality. And unlike a lot of international treaty law, the laws of war were largely written to operate at a more practical level--if they had been idealistic attempts to outlaw all warfare most major powers never would have agreed to them in the first place.
Under this theory of war any bad actor could just run around with each of their soldiers wearing a vest in which an infant is harnessed, and be protected from any martial action. That is obviously a silly hypothetical, but so is thinking the fighters with the baby-vests are given special protections, or the babies in those vests. The broad principals of war vis-a-vis civilians is they aren't to be deliberately targeted, and further that a power take efforts not to do things which don't have any (or no significant) military benefit which disproportionately harms civilians.
That latter part is a squishier concept, and if you extend it to criminalize all fighting or sieging of occupied cities, again--you're trying to criminalize almost every war since 1900.
I will note there are a number of direct comparisons to the 9 month long "Battle of Mosul" with coalition forces to dislodge ISIS from that city (larger in civilian population than all of the strip); and I cannot remember anyone making the argument that long, brutal, urban operation in which many thousands of civilians died as a form of "collective punishment." It was recognized as a terrible thing that killed lots of innocent people but was a necessity to free Iraq from the scourge of ISIS/Daesh.
Quote from: Tamas on October 24, 2023, 07:30:44 AMOr besieging an enemy-held city.
The Israelis are in fact besieging a whole territory, which holds a number of settlements, including the south, where they told people to go to be safe. Palestinians are not safe in the south, and no small measure due to the fact that there is lack of water and food.
If the Israelis were only besieging a city as you assert then there might be a stronger case made against the notion that they are engaging in collective punishment.
Lol, now professor Byers not only doesn't know what he's talking about, but according to Otto he is now "dishonest".
You got a wonder about the validity of your position if you have to resort to that kind of malicious attack against somebody who JR recognized at the beginning of this thread as a world leading authority on the topic.
You'd think if shifting people to the south was Israel's aim they'd be sure to provide plentiful water and other resources to towns in the south.
Quote from: Josquius on October 24, 2023, 08:51:06 AMYou'd think if shifting people to the south was Israel's aim they'd be sure to provide plentiful water and other resources to towns in the south.
And if their aim was collective punishment...
The entirety of the Gaza strip is roughly the size of Detroit, fwiw, to people trying to somehow act like it isn't a city-state.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 24, 2023, 09:24:42 AMThe entirety of the Gaza strip is roughly the size of Detroit, fwiw, to people trying to somehow act like it isn't a city-state.
Further Detroit is an unusually large city (IIRC about the size of Manhattan, San Francisco and Boston combined.)
1. Manhattan isn't a city, it is a borough of a city. NYC is 470 sq. mi. which is around 3x the size of Detroit or Gaza.
2. San Francisco and Boston are both relatively small cities geographically. There is a lot of variation with urban development in the United States, but as a rule cities will often attempt to expand via annexation when geography and politics allow it. Some cities, particularly ones that were already completely "hemmed in" by surrounding municipalities many years in the past, don't have that option. Boston has been ringed by incorporated towns since the 18th century, and San Francisco is on the tip of a peninsula and never had room for expansion.
A lot of American cities are Detroit sized or larger--Detroit is only the 73rd largest city by area. Excluding the top few cities because they are all unique Alaska situations, Jacksonville as an example is 747 sq.mi. to Detroit's 140 or so.
Gaza isn't a city-state but it would definitely count as a micro-nation.
Lots of farms and different settlements.
Quote from: Josquius on October 24, 2023, 09:51:05 AMGaza isn't a city-state but it would definitely count as a micro-nation.
Lots of farms and different settlements.
Definitionally city state has always applied to some limited amount of surrounding areas.
To crib Wikipedia (maybe soon to be Dickipedia):
QuoteA city-state is an independent sovereign city which serves as the center of political, economic, and cultural life over its contiguous territory.[1] They have existed in many parts of the world since the dawn of history, including cities such as Rome, Carthage, Athens and Sparta and the Italian city-states during the Middle Ages and Renaissance, such as Florence, Venice, Genoa and Milan.
None of those is out of line with Gaza in terms of political geography.
Quote from: Tamas on October 24, 2023, 04:12:28 AMBut to perhaps explain why I do no think it's the IDF, here is an example: so on the Hamas/Palestinian/world public opinion side we hear about the IDF indiscriminately bombing civilians for the hell of it (with usually Hamas as the news source), which the IDF denies - and of course I have no way of verifying whether they are just targeting Hamas personnel and installations despite Hamas putting these among civilians, or just shooting at whatever shows up in their crosshairs .
You're adopting a too narrow view. Both situations in the West Bank and Gaza are linked.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 24, 2023, 08:50:21 AMLol, now professor Byers not only doesn't know what he's talking about, but according to Otto he is now "dishonest".
You got a wonder about the validity of your position if you have to resort to that kind of malicious attack against somebody who JR recognized at the beginning of this thread as a world leading authority on the topic.
So you're appealing to JR's authority to validate your appeal to Byers' authority? While completely ignoring the context of what JR wrote?
Guys, seriously, let's stop polluting this serious thread by continuously dignifying this very unserious poster with a response. He will not start engage with what you're communicating regardless of how much effort you put in trying.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 24, 2023, 02:53:43 AMJake, isn't water a moot point? I thought they turned it back on around D+2. Makes more sense to focus on the fuel for generators.
I hope it is. I'm seeing somewhat conflicting updates.
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2023, 01:21:08 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 24, 2023, 08:50:21 AMLol, now professor Byers not only doesn't know what he's talking about, but according to Otto he is now "dishonest".
You got a wonder about the validity of your position if you have to resort to that kind of malicious attack against somebody who JR recognized at the beginning of this thread as a world leading authority on the topic.
So you're appealing to JR's authority to validate your appeal to Byers' authority? While completely ignoring the context of what JR wrote?
Guys, seriously, let's stop polluting this serious thread by continuously dignifying this very unserious poster with a response. He will not start engage with what you're communicating regardless of how much effort you put in trying.
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2023, 01:21:08 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 24, 2023, 08:50:21 AMLol, now professor Byers not only doesn't know what he's talking about, but according to Otto he is now "dishonest".
You got a wonder about the validity of your position if you have to resort to that kind of malicious attack against somebody who JR recognized at the beginning of this thread as a world leading authority on the topic.
So you're appealing to JR's authority to validate your appeal to Byers' authority? While completely ignoring the context of what JR wrote?
Guys, seriously, let's stop polluting this serious thread by continuously dignifying this very unserious poster with a response. He will not start engage with what you're communicating regardless of how much effort you put in trying.
No, I am pointing out that through the magic that is Languish a world renowned scholar has been denounced as being dishonest.
And now somehow that I am the one doing something wrong by calling that shameful conduct out? Give your head a shake.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 24, 2023, 08:03:07 AMFrankly, a not insignificant number of the critics of the IDF's operation seem to adhere to a view of "laws of war" in which wars can only be fought where civilians aren't, and where no civilians are harmed. DGuller mentioned maybe this is a fanciful view of war based on a misunderstanding that wars can be fought as a series of surgical SWAT style raids where almost no civilians are harmed, and anything else is a crime.
That is a nice and pleasant fiction--but we all know that isn't reality. And unlike a lot of international treaty law, the laws of war were largely written to operate at a more practical level--if they had been idealistic attempts to outlaw all warfare most major powers never would have agreed to them in the first place.
There have been some really stupid and ineffectual war's bad, mkay treaties through the years. Prime example has to be the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 which outlawed war itself. :hmm:
QuoteThe Kellogg-Briand Pact was an agreement to outlaw war signed on August 27, 1928.
....In the final version of the pact, they agreed upon two clauses: the first outlawed war as an instrument of national policy and the second called upon signatories to settle their disputes by peaceful means.
On August 27, 1928, fifteen nations signed the pact at Paris. Signatories included France, the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Belgium, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Italy and Japan. Later, an additional forty-seven nations followed suit, so the pact was eventually signed by most of the established nations in the world. The U.S. Senate ratified the agreement by a vote of 85–1, though it did so only after making reservations to note that U.S. participation did not limit its right to self-defense or require it to act against signatories breaking the agreement
A modern example of this sort of idealistic but ineffectual idiocy is the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
The Kellogg-Briand Pact, 1928 (https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/kellogg)
Is that so ineffectual though?
It makes clear war lies outside of the domain of acceptable behaviour and nations engaging in it are beyond the pale, hence Nuremberg et al
NPR did a bit of an analysis on some of the mainstream reporting, and walking back of said reporting, about the Gaza hospital strike and I found this startling detail:
QuoteThe Times' selection of journalists has come under sharp scrutiny in recent days as well. An Israeli diplomat chastised the paper for employing Soliman Hijjy as a freelance videographer in Gaza to document the conflict. On numerous occasions over the past 11 years, Hijjy has praised Adolf Hitler or invoked the Nazi leader in social media postings. A spokesperson for the Times says the paper reviewed those "problematic" postings last year, when the issue was first raised, and took actions "to ensure he understood our concerns and could adhere to our standards."
The New York Times response to finding out one of their contributors had "repeatedly praised Adolf Hitler in the past" was basically to tell him "remember we don't like that" and let him continue to be a contributor? I find it hard to not detect some level of antisemitism in this. I cannot imagine the Times keeping a contributor who had a similar track record of extreme bigotry against almost any other non-Jewish marginalized group.
Quote from: Josquius on October 24, 2023, 02:37:01 PMIs that so ineffectual though?
It makes clear war lies outside of the domain of acceptable behaviour and nations engaging in it are beyond the pale, hence Nuremberg et al
The Kellog-Briand pact was ineffective. The Japanese ignored it and then the rest of the world did as well after the Japanese attacked them.
A lengthy discussion of the Israeli response, including why it is an act of collective punishment
https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-ezra-klein-show/id1548604447?i=1000632417963
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 24, 2023, 05:40:38 PMA lengthy discussion of the Israeli response, including why it is an act of collective punishment
https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-ezra-klein-show/id1548604447?i=1000632417963
Is there a written transcript?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2023, 05:25:03 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 24, 2023, 02:37:01 PMIs that so ineffectual though?
It makes clear war lies outside of the domain of acceptable behaviour and nations engaging in it are beyond the pale, hence Nuremberg et al
The Kellog-Briand pact was ineffective. The Japanese ignored it and then the rest of the world did as well after the Japanese attacked them.
They didn't though?
War crimes tribunals took place for Germany and Japan.
We've had a big lack of nations declaring war since.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 24, 2023, 06:27:01 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 24, 2023, 05:40:38 PMA lengthy discussion of the Israeli response, including why it is an act of collective punishment
https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-ezra-klein-show/id1548604447?i=1000632417963
Is there a written transcript?
I will take a quick look
Here is a gifted link so anyone interested can see it
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/24/podcasts/transcript-ezra-klein-interviews-spencer-ackerman-and-peter-beinart.html?unlocked_article_code=1.5Ew.upc_.Y1bnORSbYAs5&smid=url-share
So BTW is there any other source for Gaza casualties than the Hamas-run administration?
Quote from: Tamas on October 24, 2023, 06:44:08 PMSo BTW is there any other source for Gaza casualties than the Hamas-run administration?
Not really. The UN has relief agencies with staff on the ground, and they have released some reports—but they are often just repeating what Hamas has given them. Hamas is fairly poor at actually administering Gaza. I suspect they don't even have very accurate figures to begin with.
Killing of Jewish civilians continue to trigger strong reactions from the press: " Israel must stop weaponising the Holocaust"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/24/israel-gaza-palestinians-holocaust
Quote from: Tamas on October 24, 2023, 06:44:08 PMSo BTW is there any other source for Gaza casualties than the Hamas-run administration?
No. I've noticed since the hospital that the Guardian has started prefacing figures from the Ministry of Health with "Hamas-run Ministry of Health", which sees fair.
Quote from: Josquius on October 24, 2023, 06:36:20 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2023, 05:25:03 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 24, 2023, 02:37:01 PMIs that so ineffectual though?
It makes clear war lies outside of the domain of acceptable behaviour and nations engaging in it are beyond the pale, hence Nuremberg et al
The Kellog-Briand pact was ineffective. The Japanese ignored it and then the rest of the world did as well after the Japanese attacked them.
They didn't though?
War crimes tribunals took place for Germany and Japan.
We've had a big lack of nations declaring war since.
:huh: The treaty was signed in 1928, we had wars since then.
This doesn't seem good.
https://twitter.com/Schizointel/status/1716679184183894342?t=u1MqXJZAz7SBqibtch0iFA&s=33
QuoteUS is starting to prepare but continues to deny the preparation of what could become one of the largest Non Combatant Evacuation Operations in history.
The Washington Post is reporting based on 4 officials familiar with the U.S. government's contingency planning that the Biden administration
preparing for the possibility that hundreds of thousands of American citizens (600,000 Americans in Israel and 86,000 Americans in Lebanon) will require evacuation from the Middle East if the Israel Gaza war escalates and expands beyond Gaza.
Washington Post continues "Top U.S. officials have not wanted to discuss such contingency planning in public, hoping to avoid setting off a panic among Americans in the region. But their posture has shifted in recent days to convey the anxiety about other actors entering the conflict."
Some quotes from officials familiar with the discussions.
"This has become a real issue," one official said. "The administration is very, very, very worried that this thing is going to get out of hand."
Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters that a "broader escalation" is possible "in the days ahead." Senior military leaders, he said, are taking "all necessary measures" to safeguard U.S. personnel.
"We don't necessarily see that Iran has explicitly ordered them to take these kinds of attacks," Ryder said. "That said, by virtue of the fact that they are supported by Iran, we will ultimately hold Iran responsible."
One official speaking on the condition of anonymity to detail internal deliberations, said Americans living in Israel and neighboring Lebanon are of particular concern, though they stressed that an evacuation of that magnitude is considered a "worst-case scenario and that other outcomes are seen as more likely."
Another official speaking on the condition of anonymity to detail internal deliberations said, it "would be irresponsible not to have a plan for everything."
Read the full Washington Post article below
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/10/23/us-evacuation-plans-israel-lebanon-hamas-war/
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/drone-attacks-american-bases-injured-two-dozen-us-military-personnel-rcna121961
QuoteDrone attacks on American bases injured two dozen U.S. military personnel
The groups conducting the attacks are supported by Iran and its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a Pentagon spokesman said.
Oct. 25, 2023, 5:45 AM KST
By Courtney Kube and Mosheh Gains
Two dozen American military personnel were wounded last week in a series of drone attacks at American bases in Iraq and Syria, U.S. Central Command told NBC News on Tuesday.
The Pentagon confirmed the attacks last week, but the number of U.S. casualties has not been previously disclosed.
Twenty American personnel sustained minor injuries on Oct. 18 when at least two one-way attack drones targeted al-Tanf military base in southern Syria, CENTCOM said.
One of the drones was shot down. All of the wounded personnel were returned to duty, CENTCOM said, and there was no damage to any military installations.
On that same day, another four American personnel suffered minor injuries during two separate drone attacks against U.S. and coalition forces stationed at al-Asad base in western Iraq, CENTCOM said.
The U.S. shot down the one-way attack drones, but the debris from one destroyed a hanger that contained small aircraft, CENTCOM said. All of the injured personnel returned to duty.
An American civilian contractor died due to a cardiac incident during a shelter-in-place order, but it did not occur during one of the drone attacks.
The attacks came amid rising tensions in the region over the conflict in Israel.
Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder, the Pentagon press secretary, said Tuesday that over the past week U.S. and coalition forces were attacked at least 10 separate times in Iraq and three separate times in Syria "via a mix of one way attack drones and rockets."
Ryder said the groups conducting the attacks are supported by Iran and its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
"What we are seeing is the prospect for more significant escalation against U.S. forces and personnel across the region in the very near term coming from Iranian proxy forces, and ultimately from Iran," Ryder said.
"We always reserve the right to defend ourselves and we will never hesitate to take action when needed to protect our forces and our interests overseas," he added.
Ehh, I see little scenario where 600,000 dual citizens leave Israel over the war.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 24, 2023, 06:54:44 PMQuote from: Tamas on October 24, 2023, 06:44:08 PMSo BTW is there any other source for Gaza casualties than the Hamas-run administration?
No. I've noticed since the hospital that the Guardian has started prefacing figures from the Ministry of Health with "Hamas-run Ministry of Health", which sees fair.
Same with the Globe and Mail and the NYT. Seems they all got on the same editorial page.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 24, 2023, 08:11:20 PMEhh, I see little scenario where 600,000 dual citizens leave Israel over the war.
Nuclear war with Iran?
Well, obviously there'd be less than 600k at that point, but there would be still be a few hundred thousand.
Otto leaves out the part just before where he starts to quote from his source:
QuoteBecause the language of the pact established the important point that only wars of aggression – not military acts of self-defense – would be covered under the pact, many nations had no objections to signing it. If the pact served to limit conflicts, then everyone would benefit; if it did not, there were no legal consequences.
The pact was ineffective because nations could always pose their war activities as defensive. The pact was effective enough to see to the executions of a number of German and Japanese officials postwar and the imprisonment of many more.
This CBC article (https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/washington-israel-military-gaza-analysis-1.7005703) - quoting various American analysts, journalists, and government sources - articulates some of the questions and concerns I have as well. What are Israel's objectives in this war? How do they see the aftermath playing out?
QuoteA worried Washington prods Israel to define its military objectives
Amid fear of being pulled into escalating conflict, U.S. peppers ally to explain gameplan
As Israel prepares to expand its Gaza campaign, it has Washington's worried voice in its ear, pushing it to define its objectives.
It's a reflection of Americans' fears they could be pulled into a spiralling Mideast conflict by any missteps in the coming days.
Biden administration officials confirm that they've been urging their ally to contemplate a series of potential outcomes as Israel prepares an anticipated ground offensive.
White House spokesman John Kirby on Monday was using the terminology of preparing for complex and unpredictable situations.
"We are asking [Israel] what their answers are to the kinds of questions that any military ought to be asking itself, as it conducts operations," Kirby told reporters.
"'Have you thought through the branches?'" — meaning, unintended consequences.
"'Have you thought through the sequels?'" — that is, not the immediate aftermath, but what comes later.
"We are in active conversation with them about that," he said.
The U.S. is more concerned about the Israeli war plan than it lets on in public, according to a succession of stories in The New York Times.
The Times reports that U.S. President Joe Biden and senior aides have urged Israel to delay moving into Gaza to buy time for hostage negotiations.
That's atop another report describing U.S. concerns about a push from Israel's defence minister with the potential to drastically escalate the war.
The paper said Yoav Gallant has been urging for a pre-emptive strike against Iran's powerful Lebanon-based proxy militia Hezbollah, without success as the U.S. and others in the Israeli government warn against it.
Meanwhile a Times columnist with connections to Biden, Thomas Friedman, repeated that the U.S. president has been urging his Israeli allies to see beyond their immediate rage and think three steps ahead.
He wrote that Biden has failed to persuade the Netanyahu government to think through the potential implications of a ground offensive without, at least, offering residents of Gaza any hope of a better political future without Hamas.
In a column titled, "Israel is about to make a terrible mistake," he warned that a ground war without any talk of future Palestinian statehood could trigger a global conflagration.
Then, on Monday evening, The Times put it in the bluntest possible terms: reporting that the Biden administration fears Israel lacks achievable military objectives in Gaza, citing senior U.S. sources.
In Washington, on Monday, several Middle East experts shared their fears.
At separate think-tank events, observers said Washington's biggest worry is the war pulling in Hezbollah, then Iran, and, finally, the U.S.
"This potential for a greater regional conflict takes a situation that's already horrible and could turn it into a complete nightmare," said Daniel Byman, an adviser to the State Department, a former U.S. government staffer, and now a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
At a different event, another analyst said the most pressing U.S. objective of the moment is containing the war.
"Biden's approach has been to hug Israel, and to try to push it where he thinks it [should] be," said Natan Sachs, director of the Brookings Institution's centre for Middle East policy.
"He has ... tried to steer Israeli goals and policy."
Sachs says he doubts the conflict will lead to U.S. boots on the ground, but would not be surprised to see American naval firepower used; two U.S. carrier strike groups are already mobilized for Israel's defence.
Sachs says people must understand the Israeli mindset right now, following the murderous Hamas attacks of Oct. 7.
He says Israelis are determined to ensure their country never suffers a repeat and it doesn't matter how many international campus protests burn Israelis in effigy.
Israelis, he said, will take whatever measures they deem necessary to prevent their children from ever again being burned by Hamas.
Unfortunately, he added: "This does not mean that Israel has an answer [to that]."
He and several colleagues voiced their fear that the Israeli government hasn't defined a longer-term strategy beyond attacking Hamas.
What questions could Israel be weighing?
A former CIA counterterrorism and counterintelligence official cited two challenges that military firepower alone will not resolve.
One is maintaining relationships with surrounding Arab states, especially Egypt and Jordan, whom, she said, will be essential in establishing any post-Hamas governance. Another is reducing the political rage in Gaza that allowed Hamas to thrive.
"You can't destroy an idea," Emily Harding, now deputy director of the international security program at the CSIS.
Another former U.S. official said Washington has been pressing Israel to articulate clearer goals like: How will you separate Palestinian civilians from their current leadership? Who will rebuild the Gaza government, if Hamas is destroyed?
"I don't sense the Israelis are very receptive to that right now. They are still so shocked, stung, by Hamas's terror," said Jon Alterman, former State Department official, now director of the Middle East Program at CSIS.
"They're talking about crushing, crushing, crushing. Without giving Palestinians a more desirable course to take.
"You're seeing Americans, all up and down, saying, 'Look, we've been [fighting counter-terrorism] for decades. You have to think more deeply.'"
In a speech in Israel last week, Biden alluded to this. He said the United States, in its fury, made grievous errors after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
At home, Biden is now facing pressure on two fronts.
He has progressives fuming that he's been too pro-Israel and some Arab-Americans warning they might not show up to vote for him next year.
His critics on the right say hasn't supported Israel enough. One Republican senator chided him for continuing to talk about Palestinian statehood, accusing him of prioritizing "the creation of a terror state for the people who elected Hamas."
"Israel doesn't just have a right to defend itself; Israel has a right to destroy its enemies. We should back Israel to the hilt, not try to 'restrain' them," Sen. Tom Cotton tweeted over the weekend.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 24, 2023, 06:40:10 PMI will take a quick look
Here is a gifted link so anyone interested can see it
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/24/podcasts/transcript-ezra-klein-interviews-spencer-ackerman-and-peter-beinart.html?unlocked_article_code=1.5Ew.upc_.Y1bnORSbYAs5&smid=url-share
Thanks for the link.
The issue I had with Professor Byers as you know what not his expertise, but rather that he was using descriptive statements of what is to describe aspirational views of what he thinks should be.
The issue with this colloquy is rather different - this is not a discussion about international law or the laws of war. It is a discussion between three journalists about their broader perspective on the conflict.
Peter Beinart is brilliant and eloquent and extraordinary well read, but he would not claim particular expertise on questions of international law, nor does he offer an opinion on that here. As always I find myself in substantial agreement with about 90% of what he says. The 10% has changed over time - in the old days, he was a bit more of an Israel hawk than I was, but his opinions have crossed over to the other side. But always thoughtful and well-reasoned.
Spencer Ackerman I am less familiar with. He is the one that uses the phrase "collective punishment" but in a way that is very clearly rhetorical and in no way a reasoned judgment based on authoritative principles of international law. The specific fact he mentions is a shortage of anesthetic. The proposition that a belligerent power conducting military operations against a hostile city has a legal obligation to provide supplies of anesthesia to the enemy does not appear to be supportable. The matter would stand differently if the hospitals fell under Israeli military control, but that has not happened. But Ackerman seems to be operating under the misapprehension that Gaza the place and ordinary Gazans exist in some different and physically separate plane of existence than the Hamas leaders and militants that govern Gaza and whose roots are planted deep in the territory.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2023, 07:07:08 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 24, 2023, 06:36:20 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2023, 05:25:03 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 24, 2023, 02:37:01 PMIs that so ineffectual though?
It makes clear war lies outside of the domain of acceptable behaviour and nations engaging in it are beyond the pale, hence Nuremberg et al
The Kellog-Briand pact was ineffective. The Japanese ignored it and then the rest of the world did as well after the Japanese attacked them.
They didn't though?
War crimes tribunals took place for Germany and Japan.
We've had a big lack of nations declaring war since.
:huh: The treaty was signed in 1928, we had wars since then.
Not really.
Israels declaration on Hamas is counted amongst a very small group - though as a declaration of war its quite questionable given Hamas isn't a country.
War just isn't seen as acceptable foreign policy action anymore. Look for instance at Russias insistence that's not what it is doing in Ukraine.
It's pretty clear that the "lulz. Stooped naiive peaceniks failed" view of kellog briand is itself a pretty naiive and over simplistic view of history.
It obviously didn't stop all war the way it was worded to. But it did drastically cut down on wars and made clear it was an unlawful action where the aggressor was in the wrong.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 24, 2023, 06:54:44 PMQuote from: Tamas on October 24, 2023, 06:44:08 PMSo BTW is there any other source for Gaza casualties than the Hamas-run administration?
No. I've noticed since the hospital that the Guardian has started prefacing figures from the Ministry of Health with "Hamas-run Ministry of Health", which sees fair.
I don't know they have been consistent. I recall recently their live blog was near the top of their website and headline said 'Gaza says 5000 dead' which seemed unusual for a place to speak. Only if you clicked in to look for details then you found it was coming from Hamas.
My impression of how international law handles civilian casualties is that it's both combatants responsibility to safeguard them. But not necessarily always at the same time.
Using civilians as a shield is, and should be, unacceptable. It cannot be a cheat code to hide in a hospital or a place of worship.
If one side uses baby meat shields all the other side can do is give up or shoot the babies. And in that case it is the side that's using the baby meat shield that is, and should be, responsible for the welfare of the babies.
So to take the Gaza example. Hamas having weapon factories in a mosque makes that building a target and it is well within the rights of IDF to bomb it. Likewise civilian buildings full of civilians used for military use by Hamas, that the civilians are put in danger is the responsibility of Hamas, not IDF. On the other hand a civilian building full of civilians with no military use cannot be targeted by IDF, it's their responsibility to not kill those civilians.
Civilians in Hamas controlled territory is the responsibility of Hamas, it was their responsibility to stockpile supplies so that they could handle the result of their action. That Hamas does not care about the population it rules is not, and cannot be, the responsibility of Israel. The absurdness of demanding that Israel supplies its enemies with aid during a brutal attack is staggering.
I'm not a law speaker, but to me it seems like this is the spirit of the laws, otherwise they are silly. Whatever Canadian politicians well versed in international law aspire for it to be.
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2023, 01:00:05 AMQuote from: Sheilbh on October 24, 2023, 06:54:44 PMQuote from: Tamas on October 24, 2023, 06:44:08 PMSo BTW is there any other source for Gaza casualties than the Hamas-run administration?
No. I've noticed since the hospital that the Guardian has started prefacing figures from the Ministry of Health with "Hamas-run Ministry of Health", which sees fair.
I don't know they have been consistent. I recall recently their live blog was near the top of their website and headline said 'Gaza says 5000 dead' which seemed unusual for a place to speak. Only if you clicked in to look for details then you found it was coming from Hamas.
Yeah that's what prompted my question really, some line about "Gaza deaths pass 5700" or something. Not that I doubt or deny that this is a disaster for Gaza inhabitants, mind. But either Hamas are just basically using address registers to list all hit buildings as "all residents are now dead" or they have like the best ever rescue and reporting system in place to process hundreds of reports (not counting injuries) accurately per day during what I am told is a catastrophic bombing campaign.
Quote from: Josquius on October 24, 2023, 11:34:35 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2023, 07:07:08 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 24, 2023, 06:36:20 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2023, 05:25:03 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 24, 2023, 02:37:01 PMIs that so ineffectual though?
It makes clear war lies outside of the domain of acceptable behaviour and nations engaging in it are beyond the pale, hence Nuremberg et al
The Kellog-Briand pact was ineffective. The Japanese ignored it and then the rest of the world did as well after the Japanese attacked them.
They didn't though?
War crimes tribunals took place for Germany and Japan.
We've had a big lack of nations declaring war since.
:huh: The treaty was signed in 1928, we had wars since then.
Not really.
Israels declaration on Hamas is counted amongst a very small group - though as a declaration of war its quite questionable given Hamas isn't a country.
War just isn't seen as acceptable foreign policy action anymore. Look for instance at Russias insistence that's not what it is doing in Ukraine.
It's pretty clear that the "lulz. Stooped naiive peaceniks failed" view of kellog briand is itself a pretty naiive and over simplistic view of history.
It obviously didn't stop all war the way it was worded to. But it did drastically cut down on wars and made clear it was an unlawful action where the aggressor was in the wrong.
The big mushroom cloud over Japan stopped most of the wars of the 2nd half of the 20th century. I don't think anyone took the Kellog-Briand pact into consideration during the bombings campaigns in Serbia, Libya or Syria. Notably, Saddam Hussein was not tried for crimes against peace despite Iraq having signed the Kellog-Briand pact.
As an addendum to my post about it being Hamas responsibility to store enough materiel to supply the population the IDF has shared photos of what they claim is Hamas oil reserve, some 500 million litres.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-says-gaza-photos-show-half-million-liters-of-fuel-held-by-hamas/ (https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-says-gaza-photos-show-half-million-liters-of-fuel-held-by-hamas/)
Might be true, seems very plausible. I do not understand why IDF hasn't blasted the place to smithereens. If true there's enough fuel to supply the civilians and it's very much singularly Hamas fault if the hospitals go powerless.
Quote from: Josquius on October 24, 2023, 11:34:35 PMWar just isn't seen as acceptable foreign policy action anymore. Look for instance at Russias insistence that's not what it is doing in Ukraine.
Russia doesn't give a shit about foreign opinion. If anything, they'd like to be seen as more of a threat.
The reason Putin labelled it an "operation" instead of war is purely domestic. He wanted to limit the scope so as to not generate dissent, and emphasize that it was merely bringing order to the Ukraine (which by the way is definitely part of Russia).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 24, 2023, 11:17:40 PMSpencer Ackerman I am less familiar with. He is the one that uses the phrase "collective punishment" but in a way that is very clearly rhetorical and in no way a reasoned judgment based on authoritative principles of international law. The specific fact he mentions is a shortage of anesthetic. The proposition that a belligerent power conducting military operations against a hostile city has a legal obligation to provide supplies of anesthesia to the enemy does not appear to be supportable. The matter would stand differently if the hospitals fell under Israeli military control, but that has not happened. But Ackerman seems to be operating under the misapprehension that Gaza the place and ordinary Gazans exist in some different and physically separate plane of existence than the Hamas leaders and militants that govern Gaza and whose roots are planted deep in the territory.
Yeah, this is pretty much it. The people using the term "collective punishment" are either people who are just using it as as "conversational term", and have no special knowledge of the laws of war (in which collective punishment is a specific term with actual defined meaning), or they are people like Byers who does have expertise but is essentially making an aspirational statement in which he is trying to significantly expand the definition of collective punishment past the boundaries of currently established law.
Something interesting to keep in mind is this war has been ongoing for 19 days. It was unequivocally started by Hamas, perpetrating one of the largest mass terror attacks targeting civilians that we have ever seen. In those 19 days, Hamas and Islamic Jihad have fired rockets at Israel every single day.
This is a scenario where the Gaza strip is actively waging war against Israel.
The people who seek to call it collective punishment, largely seem to be operating under a few delusions:
1. That in a war, it is "morally wrong" for two sides to be fighting and one side to be "much better" at the fighting
2. That in a war, if one side is much more powerful, it is wrong to keep fighting when the other side is being "harmed a alot."
3. It is invalid in war to conduct any military operations that will have a negative impact on civilians
I think it is quite obvious we are now in the realm of "special rules of war", that appear to have never been suggested or applied in any wars, ever--even ones between the United States and very weak entities. The only time these special rules of war seem to apply is when one of the belligerents is a Jewish country.
Damnit, almost everyone is much better at putting down a coherent argument than I am.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2023, 04:15:01 AMThe big mushroom cloud over Japan stopped most of the wars of the 2nd half of the 20th century. I don't think anyone took the Kellog-Briand pact into consideration during the bombings campaigns in Serbia, Libya or Syria. Notably, Saddam Hussein was not tried for crimes against peace despite Iraq having signed the Kellog-Briand pact.
You'll find the vast majority of the world's nations do not have nuclear weapons.
Kellog-Briand absolutely is taken into consideration every time a nation attacks another via its subsequent incorporation into the UN charter.
Waging a war of aggression is not an allowable action under international law. Any nation attacking another knows it is breaking international law and taking a huge risk in doing so. Hence not many do. There's been a material reduction in war since the pact than before it.
Again its important to note the world doesn't work in easy black and whites. You can't say "Ha, look, here's an example of a war that happened anyway thus its useless". It failed to completely end all war, its silly to expect it could have done that, but it has greatly reduced it.
I'd separate out the laws of war from "international law" which is very broad and includes some areas that could reasonably be described as having effective law, and other areas where it's very much more like guidelines.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 24, 2023, 11:17:40 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 24, 2023, 06:40:10 PMI will take a quick look
Here is a gifted link so anyone interested can see it
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/24/podcasts/transcript-ezra-klein-interviews-spencer-ackerman-and-peter-beinart.html?unlocked_article_code=1.5Ew.upc_.Y1bnORSbYAs5&smid=url-share
Thanks for the link.
The issue I had with Professor Byers as you know what not his expertise, but rather that he was using descriptive statements of what is to describe aspirational views of what he thinks should be.
The issue with this colloquy is rather different - this is not a discussion about international law or the laws of war. It is a discussion between three journalists about their broader perspective on the conflict.
Peter Beinart is brilliant and eloquent and extraordinary well read, but he would not claim particular expertise on questions of international law, nor does he offer an opinion on that here. As always I find myself in substantial agreement with about 90% of what he says. The 10% has changed over time - in the old days, he was a bit more of an Israel hawk than I was, but his opinions have crossed over to the other side. But always thoughtful and well-reasoned.
Spencer Ackerman I am less familiar with. He is the one that uses the phrase "collective punishment" but in a way that is very clearly rhetorical and in no way a reasoned judgment based on authoritative principles of international law. The specific fact he mentions is a shortage of anesthetic. The proposition that a belligerent power conducting military operations against a hostile city has a legal obligation to provide supplies of anesthesia to the enemy does not appear to be supportable. The matter would stand differently if the hospitals fell under Israeli military control, but that has not happened. But Ackerman seems to be operating under the misapprehension that Gaza the place and ordinary Gazans exist in some different and physically separate plane of existence than the Hamas leaders and militants that govern Gaza and whose roots are planted deep in the territory.
Thank you for the thoughtful analysis. To be clear I do not associate you with those who now claim that the professor is being dishonest.
What did you think about the concern expressed in their discussion that what Israel (or to be more precise, the current Prime Minister of Israel) is really trying to achieve is another mass displacement of Palestinians from territory they will not be able to be returned to after the conflict?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 25, 2023, 09:12:13 AMWhat did you think about the concern expressed in their discussion that what Israel (or to be more precise, the current Prime Minister of Israel) is really trying to achieve is another mass displacement of Palestinians from territory they will not be able to be returned to after the conflict?
I have a lot of concern because the current Israeli cabinet includes extremists some of whom I would not be surprised to hear favored some form of ethnic cleansing. For example, look up Itamar Ben-Gvir. As for Bibi himself, the problem is not so much that he has such a master plan to do something like that, as that his only master plan is doing whatever he can to stay in power and thus keep his immunity from criminal corruption charges - that could lead him to do anything including taking intentional steps to prolong and extend the conflict. But that kind of judgment requires facts to support it and the facts don't yet support the conclusion.
I also share the concerns discussed above about the water cutoff. I understand Israel is now piping some water back in but it may be they have a moral obligation to pump more than they are doing now and perhaps even an obligation under the law of war. Applying the proportionality analysis, the impact on the civilian population seems disproportionate to the likely need in relation to the conduct of military operations. It also seems like a bad idea to facilitate conditions for the spread of disease. That said, my understanding is that the piped water is a small fraction of the water supply, which mostly comes from aquifers and desalinization plants. Although the fuel shortage has compromised those sources, I can better understand why Israel is reluctant to turn over large quantities of fuel to the Gaza authorities in the middle of a shooting war.
Only around 10% of Gazan homes had piped water before the war. My understanding is most piped water that directly benefited the population went to communal water faucets which people would use, but yes to your point Gaza was not largely reliant on Israeli piped water for drinking water prior to the war itself.
Additionally, if we care to believe Hamas, they claim Israel turning the water pipes back on actually doesn't matter anymore, because they are saying the pipe system they connected to that distributed water inside Gaza is heavily damaged. You would need utility crews doing pipe repairs etc for the water to actually get anywhere. Again, that is Hamas claim.
I'd also say that the composition of Israel's cabinet isn't very reassuring as to the other concerns raised about the clarity of Israel's military strategy. It's a cabinet packed with religious zealots whose main skill set involves graft maximization and the settler lobby whose main focus is West Bank land grabs of dubious legality.
If I had to guess the main problem the hard liners have right now is their dream likely relied on being able to permanently ignore Gaza. I don't think most of them really want to annex Gaza, they just don't want it be a problem. They would likely love it if Egypt took over Gaza, but they never will.
The hardliners goal is the full annexation of the West Bank, and I think they are not easily able to see how committing a lot of military and occupation resources to Gaza furthers that goal (because it probably doesn't.)
My guess is few in the cabinet actually believe they can just push 2 million Gazans into Egypt. Some of the cabinet are extremists, but they likely understand the bounds of what they can and cannot do.
It is worth reflecting--if Israel eventually has to take over internal security for inside of the strip, it will create a persistent "problem" for Israeli society. In a sense this also undermines the hardliners, the hardliners engage in a lot of wishful / magical thinking, one of the big ones is that the status quo was not really bad. The more Israeli voters view the status quo as bad, the more currency going back to a diplomatic approach could develop, which is anathema to the hardliners.
I think an Israeli occupation of Gaza, maybe paradoxically to some, actually is to the long term political benefit of the Israeli left / supporters of the 2SS more than the hardliners / 1SS guys.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 25, 2023, 09:35:24 AMMy guess is few in the cabinet actually believe they can just push 2 million Gazans into Egypt. Some of the cabinet are extremists, but they likely understand the bounds of what they can and cannot do.
I'm not so sure on some of the extremists. I don't think they are uncomfortable with ethnic cleansing - I think Smotrich who's described the options for Palestinians in the West Bank as that they can submit, can leave or can resist and they'll be killed. Instead, as you say, I don't think they particularly want Gaza.
Also Egypt is a key partner of Israel and Egypt, looking at Lebanon and Jordan, absolutely does not want to host two million Palestinian refugees especially with an embedded revolutionary movement with military power. That's, historically, been an incredibly destabilising force in national poltics of other Arab states.
QuoteIt is worth reflecting--if Israel eventually has to take over internal security for inside of the strip, it will create a persistent "problem" for Israeli society. In a sense this also undermines the hardliners, the hardliners engage in a lot of wishful / magical thinking, one of the big ones is that the status quo was not really bad. The more Israeli voters view the status quo as bad, the more currency going back to a diplomatic approach could develop, which is anathema to the hardliners.
I think an Israeli occupation of Gaza, maybe paradoxically to some, actually is to the long term political benefit of the Israeli left / supporters of the 2SS more than the hardliners / 1SS guys.
I agree I think even if Israel doesn't do an occupation. I think the idea that Gaza can just be ignored and Hamas left to their own devices there (especially because Israel has relative security against rocket attacks) is dead. That's a core part of Netanyahu's strategy for the last 20+ years.
I think it may, as you say, paradoxiacally strengthen forces in Israel that acknowledges that there needs to be a solution for Palestine (which includes Gaza). But also I think the current bombs will no doubt bolster Hamas' or Islamic Jihad's ranks, I think that could also in the long run strengthen the PA because I think this has increased the need for Israel - and the world - to have a Palestinian interlocutor. I think all the European leaders who've been visiting Israel have also done a stop in Ramallah and I think Abbas has had more high-level political visitors in the last few weeks than in many years. Again undermining a core part of Netanyahu's strategy for many years.
Harrowing little clip from I think a university library in New York where a handful of Jewish students sheltered while protesters no doubt concerned with general humanitarian concerns are pounding on the doors.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1717297845592821933
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2023, 04:15:01 AMThe big mushroom cloud over Japan stopped most of the wars of the 2nd half of the 20th century.
Common misconception. The USSR invasion was the final straw. Fighting a war on two fronts was their nightmare and it was reflected in Hiro Hito address to the soldiers.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 25, 2023, 07:17:54 AMThis is a scenario where the Gaza strip is actively waging war against Israel.
The people who seek to call it collective punishment, largely seem to be operating under a few delusions:
1. That in a war, it is "morally wrong" for two sides to be fighting and one side to be "much better" at the fighting
2. That in a war, if one side is much more powerful, it is wrong to keep fighting when the other side is being "harmed a alot."
3. It is invalid in war to conduct any military operations that will have a negative impact on civilians
I think it is quite obvious we are now in the realm of "special rules of war", that appear to have never been suggested or applied in any wars, ever--even ones between the United States and very weak entities. The only time these special rules of war seem to apply is when one of the belligerents is a Jewish country.
The problem lies when you extend the #3 to deliberately target civilians.
It's one thing to defend yourself, it's another to pretend everyone is an enemy combatant.
Let's assume that your position is true, that 100% of the people are active supporters of Hamas. Is it legal to shoot unarmed soldiers? Normal rules of war are difficult to apply, Hamas and other "militant" group usually don't wear militant group.
Quote from: viper37 on October 25, 2023, 06:30:25 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2023, 04:15:01 AMThe big mushroom cloud over Japan stopped most of the wars of the 2nd half of the 20th century.
Common misconception. The USSR invasion was the final straw. Fighting a war on two fronts was their nightmare and it was reflected in Hiro Hito address to the soldiers.
Yeah, I'm sure that the invasion of Manchuria really did a lot to prevent WW3.
Israel will flood Hamas tunnels with never gas (https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-palestine-war-exclusive-israel-will-flood-hamas-tunnels-nerve-gas-under-delta-force-supervision)
Click-bait title.
It's what the Palestinians think the IDF will do under Delta Force supervision.
QuoteUS Delta Force will oversee "large quantities of nerve gas being pumped into Hamas tunnels, capable of paralyzing the bodily movement for a period of time between six and 12 hours."
It's a good strategy, but the element of surprise is kinda lost here.
Reminds me a Lucky Luke comic.
(about:invalid)
Hebron. The sad reality of living under occupation.
Quote from: viper37 on October 25, 2023, 10:24:26 PMIsrael will flood Hamas tunnels with never gas (https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-palestine-war-exclusive-israel-will-flood-hamas-tunnels-nerve-gas-under-delta-force-supervision)
Click-bait title.
It's what the Palestinians think the IDF will do under Delta Force supervision.
QuoteUS Delta Force will oversee "large quantities of nerve gas being pumped into Hamas tunnels, capable of paralyzing the bodily movement for a period of time between six and 12 hours."
It's a good strategy, but the element of surprise is kinda lost here.
Reminds me a Lucky Luke comic.
The website linked is pure bullshit btw. This story is 10000% fake.
Nerve gas paralyzes the heart and longs. Permanently. No wonder viper is so well informed.
He says its what the Palestinians think. Not what is actually planned. Seems very believable that they'd think something like so.
Quote from: Josquius on October 26, 2023, 03:00:15 AMSeems very believable that they'd think something like so.
Yes they'd certainly do such a thing themselves if they could.
A depressing story for the scumbags on both sides case...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67206277
On the one hand you have the official state twitter of Israel spreading lies and on the other a global grass roots campaign.
And I assume the opposite is true in the other direction sometimes.
It sure is a shit show. And really dumb of whoever runs the Israeli state twitter account, higher credibility than Hamas is an advantage they should attempt to keep.
I wanted to see what this official Israel account is https://twitter.com/Israel (https://twitter.com/Israel)
Not good for mental health place, but also weird that they are in a twitter matrix meme war with the Iranians. https://twitter.com/IsraelinUSA/status/1714612188374011915 (https://twitter.com/IsraelinUSA/status/1714612188374011915)
Quote from: viper37 on October 25, 2023, 06:30:25 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2023, 04:15:01 AMThe big mushroom cloud over Japan stopped most of the wars of the 2nd half of the 20th century.
Common misconception. The USSR invasion was the final straw. Fighting a war on two fronts was their nightmare and it was reflected in Hiro Hito address to the soldiers.
Revisionist history. Japan was not even aware of the scale of the Soviet invasion when the decision to surrender was made. The atomic bombings demonstrated that the US no longer had any need to invade, and this eliminated the last hope that the Japanese had (their plan was to defeat the invasion and then sue for peace from a stronger position). The loss of Manchuria was inconsequential at that point in the war.
Yeah I never got the whole "Soviets forced Japanese surrender" thing, I expect it was Russian propaganda. I mean, surely at that point keeping Manchuria was the least of Japan's worries?
In any case Raz originally referenced post-WW2 peace (in sense of no major great power war) which WAS I believe guaranteed by the presence of nuclear weapons so he was right.
Quote from: Tamas on October 26, 2023, 08:00:30 AMYeah I never got the whole "Soviets forced Japanese surrender" thing, I expect it was Russian propaganda. I mean, surely at that point keeping Manchuria was the least of Japan's worries?
In any case Raz originally referenced post-WW2 peace (in sense of no major great power war) which WAS I believe guaranteed by the presence of nuclear weapons so he was right.
Japanese leaders were holding out hope that they could keep Manchuria, Korea, and maybe other territories in the eventual peace. IIRC the peace feelers they put out through the USSR were all following that note.
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2023, 07:56:14 AMQuote from: viper37 on October 25, 2023, 06:30:25 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2023, 04:15:01 AMThe big mushroom cloud over Japan stopped most of the wars of the 2nd half of the 20th century.
Common misconception. The USSR invasion was the final straw. Fighting a war on two fronts was their nightmare and it was reflected in Hiro Hito address to the soldiers.
Revisionist history. Japan was not even aware of the scale of the Soviet invasion when the decision to surrender was made. The atomic bombings demonstrated that the US no longer had any need to invade, and this eliminated the last hope that the Japanese had (their plan was to defeat the invasion and then sue for peace from a stronger position). The loss of Manchuria was inconsequential at that point in the war.
And even the bombings didn't convince everyone: there was an anti-peace coup attempt while the government was about to surrender.
Quote from: Tamas on October 26, 2023, 08:00:30 AMYeah I never got the whole "Soviets forced Japanese surrender" thing, I expect it was Russian propaganda. I mean, surely at that point keeping Manchuria was the least of Japan's worries?
I think it's more the implications of Soviet invasion in the peace. Not just no Asian land holdings but what it would mean for the Home Islands. The emperor's definitely gone if the Soviets are a party and they've just seen the allies establish zones of control in Austria and Germany. And I think the early contours of the Cold War are already shaping everyone's thinking: US or USSR.
Obviously revisionist isn't untrue and all of these events came at around the same time. My understanding is the Japanese sources are often contradictory - different audiences and areas get different emphases. I'm persuaded by Hasegawa's account which leans more Soviet. But ultimately there's no way to know.
Obviously I think for different reasons and in different ways it's in Japanese and American interests to focus on the bomb, which shapes the interpretation for a long time.
Its been discussed to death but the 'nuclear bombs single handily won the war' thing is propaganda. Designed and taught for a variety of reasons post-war (one of which was threatening the Soviets). These days it is increasingly questioned as the needs behind this convenient explanation have faded away . Also there's a lot more cross-pollination between Japanese and western academics and source-sharing than historians used to do.
The Japanese leadership were scared shitless of the Soviets and communism in general. There was a very real belief a communist uprising could be sparked at any moment.
As seen with the Japanese peace feelers and behaviour in the immediate post-war keeping the emperor intact was highly important to them- with the Soviets swooping down they couldn't afford to keep trying to get it in writing that the Americans would let him live, they had to just surrender unconditionally as demanded.
The further idea that the bombs saved millions of lives in an inevitable suicidal Japanese defence against an American invasion just don't add up (even if you believe the Japanese actually would behave this way and there weren't other factors at work in Okinawa).
The time scales for the invasion were too far out. Even if you disbelieve the Soviet invasion was more significant than the nuclear attacks (lets not forget too that Japan was already getting its cities regularly plastered by conventional bombs) you can't possibly think it was worth nothing and still claim to have a grasp on the history.
Long as sin but this is a pretty good wrapup of things if you want something to listen to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCRTgtpC-Go
Regarding the original question it's entirely irrelevant how the atomic bombs affected Japanese surrender discussions. What mattered to keeping the peace afterwards was the perception of the effectiveness of atomic bombs and their perceived effect of the Japanese surrender discussions, and they sure seemed effective. They were important for what they meant for the next war, no for their effect on Japan.
Quote from: Threviel on October 26, 2023, 09:09:55 AMRegarding the original question it's entirely irrelevant how the atomic bombs affected Japanese surrender discussions. What mattered to keeping the peace afterwards was the perception of the effectiveness of atomic bombs and their perceived effect of the Japanese surrender discussions, and they sure seemed effective. They were important for what they meant for the next war, no for their effect on Japan.
Thats certainly true as far as a NATO-Warsaw Pact war goes (indeed its the key argument for using the nukes being the right decision).
But there's lots of other nations in the world and there was a much reduced amount of war to be seen amongst these under the pact than before.
Most of the rest of the world was under colonial administration for a lot of that time and after that they haven't been exactly peaceful. India and China have both been in several aggressive wars. South East Asia hasn't exactly been a paragon of peace. Middle East has had lots of wars, likewise Africa and Central America. South America has been relatively peaceful on the other hand, at least when it comes to wars between nations.
An argument can perhaps be made that the Vienna conference led to a decrease in war that has continued into modern times, but I don't really see a break of behaviour in the 30's.
Edit: Thinking about it all the great powers and many middling powers have invaded several countries in aggressive wars since 1945 and since 1929 almost all middling powers have done the same.
And even Caesar had to have a plausible Casus Belli to not be thought of as the aggressor. Not much has changed unless one wants the Kellogg-Briand pact to have been effective. But correlation and causation and all that.
I think this has all been rehashed here before but:
The Soviets could not invade the home islands, period. Not for years and years. This has been discussed to death, but the idea the Soviets put the home islands at risk is video game shit, it ignores what an amphibious invasion requires and how they work. If the Soviets literally used their entire transport / landing craft capacity, they could move only half a division (ostensibly onto Hokkaido.) They would have to drop them off, turn around, sail hours away, and pickup another round of troops to land a whole division.
The Allied combined forces on Normandy landed 13 divisions on Day 1. A half division landing against Japan--a far more difficult prospect in every sense to invading Normandy, due to geography, the nature of the surrounding seas, the population density of Japan, the fact of invading a country's home vs Normandy being a fairly weakly protected German "possession", it is just inconceivable the USSR was invading the Home Islands.
In re the argument about the atomic bombings "saving lives", the main factor you have to consider is actually starvation of the Japanese civilian population. Starvation is one of those things, it isn't flashy like firebombings or atomic bombs. But when a population reaches a certain "critical point" in famine, the deaths start to rack up with incredibly scale and rapidity.
Gar Alperovitz represents one group of the "anti-bomb" camp who actually makes this argument really well in his book, but he makes it as an argument that Japan didn't need bombed because they would "have to" surrender imminently due to the impending famine conditions. The assumption implicit is the Japanese leadership would surrender before seeing a chunk of their people die to famine--an assumption that was never quite tested.
I think the biggest, and most overlooked aspect of the bomb playing a role in peace is the influence of the Emperor. The Emperor decided to surrender, which, while he technically had a lot of power under the Meiji Constitution, rarely exercised it so directly. The Japanese final cabinet, the "Big Six", were committed to a war of extinction, but there were a few members who were at least discussing the possibility of peace. (It should be noted that in Imperial Japan, zealous Army officers had assassinated Japanese political leaders who in previous conflicts had indicated any desire away from militarism, so we don't have a complete record of these meetings, no officers were allowed in the meetings and they were kept incredibly closed to avoid any discussion of peace resulting in assassinations.) It is known that at one point, Fumimaro Konoe, who had been Prime Minister prior to Tojo, but remained an important personal advisor to Emperor Hirohito until the end of the war, warned the Emperor of the risks of continuing the fighting.
Hirohito was recorded as saying he couldn't consider peace until the army was able to fight at least one last major battle to try and inflict huge casualties on the enemy.
I suspect there are a few reasons for this. One, this was the strongly expressed desire of most of the Big Six, and the Meiji era Emperors typically fully deferred to the military leadership. For two, I think it comported with the sort of "honor based" obligations Hirohito felt he had to uphold as Emperor.
I think the atomic bombings are thus important, because they put the Japanese Emperor in a position where he realized there may not be an honorable last stand, where the Imperial Army, win or lose, inflicts massive casualties on the enemy. Instead, he was facing the prospect Japan could simply be destroyed through these new atomic weapons, city after city. No need for American boots on the ground. No honorable last battle, simple annihilation of his people. [Of course the Japanese also doubted we had a ton of atomic bombs, but the fact we hit Nagasaki definitely influenced their thinking as to how many we might have--we certainly could not have produced enough to level Japan in a reasonable period of time, but the Japanese had no way to know the particulars. An interestingly historical aside--an American pilot shot down and captured over Japan, told his Japanese captors under torture that the United States had a stockpile of 100 atomic bombs, and growing. This was viewed as credible enough that it was mentioned specifically in a meeting of the Big 6 after the atomic bombings. Note this pilot knew absolutely nothing about the Manhattan Project or anything about our bombs, it was just a crazy bluff he made lol.]
There is certainly significant argument to be made that the Japanese were "coming around" to surrender of some sort before the bombings.
A few months prior, Hirohito had observed the material degradation in Japan's fighting forces, sometimes at odds with what high command were telling him, and asked that options for peace be explored. Supposedly a major deciding moment for him was when he heard they were rounding up shrapnel from American bombs to build tools and equipment, since their own supplies of metal were so limited.
In the final days: the possibility Japan could not contain civil unrest, that famine was looming, that the actual military units intended to defend the home islands were woefully ill equipped and were missing every deadline set for preparation for defending against the invasion were all discussed.
It is possible these factors on their own could have lead to Hirohito's decision to accept Potsdam--but it seems all but certain at least in the immediate sense, the atomic bombings "shook loose" something in the Emperor and lead to him to tell his divided cabinet that they must accept the Potsdam declaration. The power of the Emperor, long only held in theory in Meiji Japan, was realized as even the hardliners on the Big Six decided that they had ultimate responsibility to accept the Emperor's will, even if they disagree with it.
While history, particularly massaged by America, long tried to minimize Hirohito's active role in government, the reality is the Japanese were in awe of the Emperor, including the highest members of the imperial staff. As long as he deferred to them, they were content to push agendas and have him cowed. But on the rare occasions when he asserted his authority as Emperor, none of them ever meaningfully opposed him. Some junior officers did, although even they couched their attempted coup as one to "protect the Emperor" from nefarious forces that had misled him.
For this reason I do think more focus than is commonly given, should be given to the singular person of Hirohito--and he does seem to have been genuinely moved, at least in terms of timing, by the atomic bombs.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2023, 11:49:35 PMNerve gas paralyzes the heart and longs. Permanently. No wonder viper is so well informed.
I don't think it's a nerve gas as the Palestinians imply.
The Russians used a similar technique to storm the theater during the hostage crisis, but miss their shot.
I have no idea how well ventilated are these tunnels. Any kind of chemical agent needs dispersal. In a theater, you have a ventilation system. If they don't have that in a tunnel, it's difficult to "flood" it with any kind of chemical and keep the element of surprise.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 26, 2023, 10:54:29 AMI think this has all been rehashed here before but:
The Soviets could not invade the home islands, period. Not for years and years. This has been discussed to death, but the idea the Soviets put the home islands at risk is video game shit, it ignores what an amphibious invasion requires and how they work. If the Soviets literally used their entire transport / landing craft capacity, they could move only half a division (ostensibly onto Hokkaido.) They would have to drop them off, turn around, sail hours away, and pickup another round of troops to land a whole division.
A Japanese invasion of Siberia was a favourite Axis and Allies move of mine - but really it only belongs in a game of that much simplicity. Even starting from Manchuria the infrastructure of the soviet far east just wouldn't support the movement and supply of large numbers of troops.
Quote from: viper37 on October 26, 2023, 12:04:47 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2023, 11:49:35 PMNerve gas paralyzes the heart and longs. Permanently. No wonder viper is so well informed.
I don't think it's a nerve gas as the Palestinians imply.
The Russians used a similar technique to storm the theater during the hostage crisis, but miss their shot.
I have no idea how well ventilated are these tunnels. Any kind of chemical agent needs dispersal. In a theater, you have a ventilation system. If they don't have that in a tunnel, it's difficult to "flood" it with any kind of chemical and keep the element of surprise.
It's an Arab conspiracy theory, like the one where Jews control sharks. It's not worthy of consideration.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2023, 12:53:57 PMA Japanese invasion of Siberia was a favourite Axis and Allies move of mine - but really it only belongs in a game of that much simplicity. Even starting from Manchuria the infrastructure of the soviet far east just wouldn't support the movement and supply of large numbers of troops.
Although (and I know I bang on about this book....but) Stephen Kotkin's biography of Stalin in the 30s is really interesting on quite how much Soviet focus was on the threat from Japan and how big of a deal clashes in the far east where. I think even at the peak of Germany's invasion, the Soviets kept a huge force in the far east precisely because of the perceived risk from Japan.
As far as I can see on Wikipedia the last reliable data on Gaza Strip population was in 2010 indicating roughly 1 million, but now it is estimated 2.2 million.
So using 2.2m, according to Gaza (Hamas) officials, 0.31% of Gaza Strip population (7,000) have died since Israel started its bombing campaign. So that's what, 0.1% per week. I wonder how that compares to the industrial-level terror bombings of the Allies in WW2.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2023, 12:56:14 PMIt's an Arab conspiracy theory, like the one where Jews control sharks. It's not worthy of consideration.
Option A: Do nothing and keep bombing the shit out of Palestinians and Hamas.
Option B: Send in the ground troops and raze a few buildings, forget about the hostages. It's essentially what Israel did the last time, but there were only two soldiers, IIRC.
Option C: Try and rescue the hostages and since there are American citizens, the US is usually involved.
I am deeply curious what will be the option retained. Does the current government has put a cross on rescuing the hostages already?
What the Palestinians think will happen is interesting compared to what will really happen and when.
Will the IDF really pull it off? Secure the hostages and avoid killing them all? There's about 250 hostages. Hamas says the airstrikes killed 20 of them, so presumably they killed them already. Or they placed them where they would be killed, which amount to the same.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 26, 2023, 01:18:41 PMAlthough (and I know I bang on about this book....but) Stephen Kotkin's biography of Stalin in the 30s is really interesting on quite how much Soviet focus was on the threat from Japan and how big of a deal clashes in the far east where. I think even at the peak of Germany's invasion, the Soviets kept a huge force in the far east precisely because of the perceived risk from Japan.
Also explains why Stalin gave so much support and backing to Chiang for so long, sometimes to the detriment of the CCP. Keeping Japan's land forces occupied was far more important than promoting a premature Communist movement in China.
Quote from: Tamas on October 26, 2023, 01:56:10 PMSo using 2.2m, according to Gaza (Hamas) officials, 0.31% of Gaza Strip population (7,000) have died since Israel started its bombing campaign. So that's what, 0.1% per week. I wonder how that compares to the industrial-level terror bombings of the Allies in WW2.
Well the Tokyo one killed 100,000 in a single night; the rates aren't even remotely comparable.
We're starting to see IDF larger scale raids into the strip, I am thinking they are running some form of the Battle of Mosul playbook--there was even some thinly sourced reporting that said they were consulting with the U.S. specifically to that ends.
While some aspects of the Battle of Mosul were bog-standard street by street urban combat, it has been studied extensively because it was seen as a battle in which an attacking force against a tunnel-infested, insurgent controlled city was able to avoid quite the level of brutal street by street fighting and attritional warfare often common in urban campaigns.
While there were a lot of moving pieces--one of the things the coalition forces did well in Mosul was they conducted lots of raids of ISIS territory. ISIS local units generally did not want to hunker down, they liked to conduct a 'mobile' defense, so a coalition raid would come in and local ISIS units would move around trying to get lucky and pick off or ambush parts of the raid's forces. This sometimes worked.
However, in aggregate what actually occurred is these mobile defensive maneuvers ultimately exposed ISIS fighters to much greater direct fire than hunkering down in prepared tunnels and other structures, whilst it likely served some good psychological purpose in that ISIS fighters got to claim coalition kills, and feel that they were fighting back, they steadily lost far more men from these skirmishes than the coalition--to a pretty bad ratio, actually. This attrited a lot of ISIS strength out in the open, where the coalition didn't have to level buildings or crawl into tunnels to get them.
When I read that the big Israel raid in the last 12 hours encountered several Hamas units that jumped out to try and hit Israeli tanks, I suspect that getting those Hamas units to come out of their holes is probably one of the primary goals of these raids in the first place--exposing them to more direct fire, and also exposing tactics and behaviors they are likely to exhibit throughout the campaign.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 26, 2023, 03:25:45 PMISIS local units generally did not want to hunker down, they liked to conduct a 'mobile' defense, so a coalition raid would come in and local ISIS units would move around trying to get lucky and pick off or ambush parts of the raid's forces. This sometimes worked.
However, in aggregate what actually occurred is these mobile defensive maneuvers ultimately exposed ISIS fighters to much greater direct fire than hunkering down in prepared tunnels and other structures, whilst it likely served some good psychological purpose in that ISIS fighters got to claim coalition kills, and feel that they were fighting back, they steadily lost far more men from these skirmishes than the coalition--to a pretty bad ratio, actually. This attrited a lot of ISIS strength out in the open, where the coalition didn't have to level buildings or crawl into tunnels to get them.
Problem with that is the people likely to engage in fights out in the open are the cannon fodder. The core leadership and Hamas cadres will hunker down in the tunnels.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 26, 2023, 03:38:47 PMProblem with that is the people likely to engage in fights out in the open are the cannon fodder. The core leadership and Hamas cadres will hunker down in the tunnels.
Hamas leadership aren't what allows them to fight--you need soldiers for that, an army of generals isn't an army, it's the remnants of one.
Quote from: Josquius on October 26, 2023, 08:31:14 AMThe further idea that the bombs saved millions of lives in an inevitable suicidal Japanese defence against an American invasion just don't add up (even if you believe the Japanese actually would behave this way and there weren't other factors at work in Okinawa).
Why not? We have abundant documented evidence throughout the Pacific campaign about the unwillingness of Japanese troops to surrender and their preference to die honorably.
Quote from: Josquius on October 26, 2023, 04:55:29 AMA depressing story for the scumbags on both sides case...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67206277
This story is depressing, not because it shows that both sides have internet trolls, but because official organs of the Israeli state have been peddling lies. I was thinking back when Jake mentioned the infowar that the only thing Israel has to do to satisfy me on that front is not lie.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 26, 2023, 08:12:18 AMQuote from: Tamas on October 26, 2023, 08:00:30 AMYeah I never got the whole "Soviets forced Japanese surrender" thing, I expect it was Russian propaganda. I mean, surely at that point keeping Manchuria was the least of Japan's worries?
In any case Raz originally referenced post-WW2 peace (in sense of no major great power war) which WAS I believe guaranteed by the presence of nuclear weapons so he was right.
Japanese leaders were holding out hope that they could keep Manchuria, Korea, and maybe other territories in the eventual peace. IIRC the peace feelers they put out through the USSR were all following that note.
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2023, 07:56:14 AMQuote from: viper37 on October 25, 2023, 06:30:25 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2023, 04:15:01 AMThe big mushroom cloud over Japan stopped most of the wars of the 2nd half of the 20th century.
Common misconception. The USSR invasion was the final straw. Fighting a war on two fronts was their nightmare and it was reflected in Hiro Hito address to the soldiers.
Revisionist history. Japan was not even aware of the scale of the Soviet invasion when the decision to surrender was made. The atomic bombings demonstrated that the US no longer had any need to invade, and this eliminated the last hope that the Japanese had (their plan was to defeat the invasion and then sue for peace from a stronger position). The loss of Manchuria was inconsequential at that point in the war.
And even the bombings didn't convince everyone: there was an anti-peace coup attempt while the government was about to surrender.
The Japanese put out no peace feelers through the USSR. One Japanese diplomat, without any government sanction, sought a meeting with Molotov in which he wanted to express hope that the USSR would agree to be an intermediary, and Molotov turned him away because the diplomat had no government sanction for such a request.
It's true that there was a low-level coup attempt to try to prevent the Emperor's message from being broadcast, but it was short-lived.
QuoteWhy not? We have abundant documented evidence throughout the Pacific campaign about the unwillingness of Japanese troops to surrender and their preference to die honorably.
Brainwashed hardcore military men who felt their side still had a chance of winning and in death they could contribute to this.
Not fresh conscripts who knew it was just a matter of time before they lost.
Look to the Soviet invasions and how many surrendered there. And this was despite the reputation of the Soviets with prisoners (such stuff was said about the western allies too of course, but this would have been somewhat less effective).
In Okinawa things are especially fucked up with the Okinawans not being regarded as proper Japanese and forced into suicide at gun point by fanatics.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 26, 2023, 10:54:29 AMI think this has all been rehashed here before but:
The Soviets could not invade the home islands, period. Not for years and years. This has been discussed to death, but the idea the Soviets put the home islands at risk is video game shit, it ignores what an amphibious invasion requires and how they work. If the Soviets literally used their entire transport / landing craft capacity, they could move only half a division (ostensibly onto Hokkaido.) They would have to drop them off, turn around, sail hours away, and pickup another round of troops to land a whole division.
Technically. Legally speaking 100%. The Soviets already had invaded the home islands. Sakhalin (Karafuto) was incorporated as a regular prefecture in 1943 and the Northern Territories were/are part of Hokkaido.
Definitely true these wouldn't be regarded on anything like the same level as an invasion of the historic parts of Japan. Even a Hokkaido landing would be regarded as lesser and more about what it meant for future invasions. Okinawa too was officially Japan but still not quite mentally seen the same way (really odd turn of history that it ended up back with Japan in the 70s).
Nonetheless the invasion of these lands was regarded as a few steps above seizing just part of the overseas empire.
QuoteThe Allied combined forces on Normandy landed 13 divisions on Day 1. A half division landing against Japan--a far more difficult prospect in every sense to invading Normandy, due to geography, the nature of the surrounding seas, the population density of Japan, the fact of invading a country's home vs Normandy being a fairly weakly protected German "possession",
Why do you say a lower population density makes the invasion harder?
And don't underestimate how poorly defended the north was at this point. The previous American diversions time had passed.
Quoteit is just inconceivable the USSR was invading the Home Islands.
I disagree as far as Hokkaido goes. The north of the island certainly. Its a very short trip from islands they did successfully take to Hokkaido, and it would not be easy for Japan to shift more defences up there at all.
Invading Honshu would be a far more difficult task of course. I'd see realistically Japan holding a line perhaps around Sapporo, certainly further south where the island becomes very narrow.
Regardless however the point isn't whether the Soviets actually could manage to conquer Japan. Its whether the Japanese believed they could. And signs suggest they really did see this as a very real threat- as mentioned they had a lot of fear of internal uprisings supporting the Soviets too.
QuoteI think the biggest, and most overlooked aspect of the bomb playing a role in peace is the influence of the Emperor. The Emperor decided to surrender, which, while he technically had a lot of power under the Meiji Constitution, rarely exercised it so directly. The Japanese final cabinet, the "Big Six", were committed to a war of extinction, but there were a few members who were at least discussing the possibility of peace. (It should be noted that in Imperial Japan, zealous Army officers had assassinated Japanese political leaders who in previous conflicts had indicated any desire away from militarism, so we don't have a complete record of these meetings, no officers were allowed in the meetings and they were kept incredibly closed to avoid any discussion of peace resulting in assassinations.) It is known that at one point, Fumimaro Konoe, who had been Prime Minister prior to Tojo, but remained an important personal advisor to Emperor Hirohito until the end of the war, warned the Emperor of the risks of continuing the fighting.
Hirohito was recorded as saying he couldn't consider peace until the army was able to fight at least one last major battle to try and inflict huge casualties on the enemy.
I suspect there are a few reasons for this. One, this was the strongly expressed desire of most of the Big Six, and the Meiji era Emperors typically fully deferred to the military leadership. For two, I think it comported with the sort of "honor based" obligations Hirohito felt he had to uphold as Emperor.
Yes. Though worth noting this comment of Hirohito was some time earlier in February 1945. A lot of bad stuff was still to happen for Japan at that point.
There are those who would question this and say it itself is simply post war propaganda, part of the arrangement the occupying authorities made with the Japanese, etc...but I do think there is a lot of truth to the Showa emperor being cloistered and ignorant view of things.
There's similar vibes today coming out of Russia with Putin and then to a lesser extent Hitler in his bunker. He has supreme power technically.... but knowledge coming through to him is frequently limited and heavily biased.
He is surrounded by militarists who are all telling him everything is fine, just one more battle and we'll get a favourable peace, so his actions are in line with a leader living in that reality.
As time ticks on however the cracks in the protective shell around him are steadily breaking and he's coming to realise people like Konoe encouraging an end to the war ASAP had the right of it.
QuoteI think the atomic bombings are thus important, because they put the Japanese Emperor in a position where he realized there may not be an honorable last stand, where the Imperial Army, win or lose, inflicts massive casualties on the enemy. Instead, he was facing the prospect Japan could simply be destroyed through these new atomic weapons, city after city. No need for American boots on the ground. No honorable last battle, simple annihilation of his people. [Of course the Japanese also doubted we had a ton of atomic bombs, but the fact we hit Nagasaki definitely influenced their thinking as to how many we might have--we certainly could not have produced enough to level Japan in a reasonable period of time, but the Japanese had no way to know the particulars. An interestingly historical aside--an American pilot shot down and captured over Japan, told his Japanese captors under torture that the United States had a stockpile of 100 atomic bombs, and growing. This was viewed as credible enough that it was mentioned specifically in a meeting of the Big 6 after the atomic bombings. Note this pilot knew absolutely nothing about the Manhattan Project or anything about our bombs, it was just a crazy bluff he made lol.]
There is certainly significant argument to be made that the Japanese were "coming around" to surrender of some sort before the bombings.
It is possible these factors on their own could have lead to Hirohito's decision to accept Potsdam--but it seems all but certain at least in the immediate sense, the atomic bombings "shook loose" something in the Emperor and lead to him to tell his divided cabinet that they must accept the Potsdam declaration. The power of the Emperor, long only held in theory in Meiji Japan, was realized as even the hardliners on the Big Six decided that they had ultimate responsibility to accept the Emperor's will, even if they disagree with it.
Where I'd say the bombs have their importance as far as the Japanese surrender goes (their main importance lying elsewhere) is in being something new.
Destroying Japan's cities was already a standard day at the office for the Americans. There was nothing too new to report there. In the atomic bombings however the news shifted- it matter not whether this bomb was worse, in a way it could even have been less destructive and had the same effect, but in being something different it cracked through the news cordon/self-imposed filter around the emperor in a way "Yet another city firebombed into nothing" wouldn't.
Imagine it in terms of modern events- we've become quite numb to Russia's daily drone and missile attacks against Ukrainian civilians. They're horrors that just go in one ear and out the other. If Russia were to do a new sort of shiftiness however, even one that kills fewer people than the daily attacks do, then that would catch our attention.
Also sort of important for their role in the surrender was in giving Hirohito and the militarists a face-saving excuse for surrender. It wasn't that the Japanese army had been defeated fair and square...It was those cunning Americans and their sneaky magic bomb that did it.
Practically this really wasn't such a big deal. They knew America could destroy their cities anyway and that they probably didn't have many of these bombs.
But in terms of face "The enemy changed the rules. The magic will kill us all" works as an excuse in a way the rather more practical reason of "The Soviets are going to defeat our armies and wipe out the elites." didn't.
Nonetheless even without the bombs it doesn't seem likely they could have gone on much longer. With every day that ticked on, looming famine and fire bombings of cities, the Soviet invasion creeping down, and so on, the bar for what was an acceptable surrender dropped dramatically.
Jos I'm not sure if you were on drugs or what happened when you typed that post, but you can't actually be serious when talking about the Soviet invasion of Sakhalin--half of that Island was pre-war Russian territory, there was no amphibious invasion, they were already on the island.
It isn't even remotely comparable to having to land on a hostile beach for a country (USSR) that had minimal sea transport at all.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 27, 2023, 11:07:37 AMJos I'm not sure if you were on drugs or what happened when you typed that post, but you can't actually be serious when talking about the Soviet invasion of Sakhalin--half of that Island was pre-war Russian territory, there was no amphibious invasion, they were already on the island.
It isn't even remotely comparable to having to land on a hostile beach for a country (USSR) that had minimal sea transport at all.
Legally Karafuto was a full Japanese Prefecture and part of the home islands. This is a fact. A recent fact at the time and likely one disconnected from feelings. But a legal fact nonetheless. Soviet sea transport is irrelevant.
Sad you dodge everything else including mention of the kurils and Northern territories in the same bit just to hone in on what you think is a mistake.
"Sorry, Joe, you can't invade over land. Legally our half of the island is a full Japanese Prefecture, so you'll have to invade amphibiously. Sorry for the inconvenience."
The Kuriles are sort of the exception that proves the rule. The Soviets landed an assault force of less than 9000 men on the main island and the surrender happened a couple of days later. Virtually no combat naval forces were deployed by either side. It doesn't really say anything about the feasibility of an invasion of the main islands, any more than the Nazi occupation of the channel islands was a demonstration of the feasibility of Sea Lion.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 27, 2023, 01:12:38 PMThe Kuriles are sort of the exception that proves the rule. The Soviets landed an assault force of less than 9000 men on the main island and the surrender happened a couple of days later. Virtually no combat naval forces were deployed by either side. It doesn't really say anything about the feasibility of an invasion of the main islands, any more than the Nazi occupation of the channel islands was a demonstration of the feasibility of Sea Lion.
The distance between mainland Russian ports and the Kurils is much greater than between the northern territories, or even the kurils and sakhallin, and hokkaido.
As said however whether the Soviets could do it or not isn't particularly relevant. They probably wouldn't get around to trying it before the Japanese surrender either even if we assume they had plentiful landing ships.
That the Japanese believed it was going to happen was the key.
The WWII stuff is fascinating :nerd:
Meanwhile, it seems that Israel has entered a new phase in their operations? I see it reported that communication in Gaza has been shut down (or severely downgraded), and Israel is increasing the volume of attacks.
Has Israel stated any clear objectives at this point?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/26/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-invasion-delay.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/26/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-invasion-delay.html)
Quote"We have set two goals for this war: To eliminate Hamas by destroying its military and governing abilities, and to do everything possible to bring our captives home," Mr. Netanyahu said.
Thanks Threviel.
The first one seems clear enough. The second one is a bit less significant, given the "do everything possible" part.
Quote from: Josquius on October 27, 2023, 05:26:25 AMBrainwashed hardcore military men who felt their side still had a chance of winning and in death they could contribute to this.
Not fresh conscripts who knew it was just a matter of time before they lost.
Look to the Soviet invasions and how many surrendered there. And this was despite the reputation of the Soviets with prisoners (such stuff was said about the western allies too of course, but this would have been somewhat less effective).
In Okinawa things are especially fucked up with the Okinawans not being regarded as proper Japanese and forced into suicide at gun point by fanatics.
What I've read says indoctrination/brainwashing of the Japanese population (I would argue that most of the beliefs were intrinsic parts of Japanese culture and required no indoctrination) began at an earlier age than the moment of conscription. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
If the realization that they were going to lose were relevant then surely it would have been a factor prior to the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. Yamamoto knew Japan was going to lose but he kept on fighting. Germans knew they were going to lose but kept on fighting.
Please tell me more about the Japanese surrenders to the Soviets. I honestly know nothing about this.
As to civilian suicides my understanding is the Japanese settlers on islands like Saipan were not Okinawan and not forced at bayonet point.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2023, 08:33:12 PMIf the realization that they were going to lose were relevant then surely it would have been a factor prior to the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. Yamamoto knew Japan was going to lose but he kept on fighting.
I don't think anyone says it's the Soviet invasion of over 1 million troops alone. But rather you have these series of shocks in a very short space of time. Hiroshima on the 6th, Soviets on the 7th and Nagasaki on the 9th with Japan's surrender on the 15th. In addition Japanese decision making structures are difficult and people, including the Emperor, say different things at different points to different audiences. Also the Japanese destroyed a lot of records - particularly those touching the Emperor.
I think the question will never be answered. I am more convinced by Hasegawa who wrote a book - a revisionist take - on this. He's a Japanese historian who specialises in Japanese-Soviet relations. His argument is that there are a series of shocks that cumulatively push Japan to surrender, but he argues the Soviet ivasion was the decisive factor/weighed heavier. My understanding is that his history is the most detailed of the hour-by-hour decision making between the different centres of power in Tokyo - but it isn't conclusive, it is an argument.
I really agree with his emphasis on the Cold War and that both Truman and Stalin are already thinking of the next confrontation between the US and USSR. That was, I think, already present in the logic of what was starting to happen in Germany and Austria. I don't think it's the fear of a Soviet invasion in the sense of this is going to make us lose the war (although I'm not so sure the USSR wouldn't have been able to do it - Japan was prepared for an American invasion from the south and I wonder how much they're judging what the Western allies would want in place before an invasion v what Stalin would tolerate), that pushes Japan - but the fear of peace with the Soviets at the table. They know what that will look like in the post-war.
It would involve zones of control, split occupation - and it will definitely involve removing the Emperor. Surrendering to the Americans on the terms of the Potsdam declaration with one edit (the imperial house survives) removes that possibility of Stalin at the table and the Soviets dicatating terms. I think setting out the terms in the Potsdam declaration after the bomb was canny politics by the Americans and I think Byrnes or Stimson actually suggested explicitly mentioning the possibility of a constitutional monarchy in Potsdam because they thought it would prompt Japanese surrender.
The framing of it was the bomb and we surrendered to the Americans, I'd argue, facilitated Japan taking a role in the Pacific in the Cold War. With Korea, China and the start of revolution in Indochina, the Pacific was a very hot theatre and focus in the early Cold War. I also think the argument that to an extent the bomb was partly a marker from Truman for the Cold War has some truth to it.
As I say there is no answer and there are competing explanations, incomplete sources and ultimately it comes down to what a few people thought and decided. In particular what resolved the Emperor to move. So we'll never know - I find Hasegawa's argument persuasive.
QuoteGermans knew they were going to lose but kept on fighting.
Although isn't at least part of that the same point? I could be totally wrong but for a lot of German military the reason to keep fighting was fear of the Soviets, the reason for Japan to surrender to the US was the same.
Quote from: Jacob on October 27, 2023, 02:18:17 PMThe WWII stuff is fascinating :nerd:
Meanwhile, it seems that Israel has entered a new phase in their operations? I see it reported that communication in Gaza has been shut down (or severely downgraded), and Israel is increasing the volume of attacks.
Has Israel stated any clear objectives at this point?
The objective is to permanently defeat and destroy Hamas.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 28, 2023, 08:06:58 AMQuote from: Jacob on October 27, 2023, 02:18:17 PMThe WWII stuff is fascinating :nerd:
Meanwhile, it seems that Israel has entered a new phase in their operations? I see it reported that communication in Gaza has been shut down (or severely downgraded), and Israel is increasing the volume of attacks.
Has Israel stated any clear objectives at this point?
The objective is to permanently defeat and destroy Hamas.
That's an aspiration, not an objective. Objectives (in the military sense) are quantifiable.
Quote from: Josquius on October 27, 2023, 11:44:18 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 27, 2023, 11:07:37 AMJos I'm not sure if you were on drugs or what happened when you typed that post, but you can't actually be serious when talking about the Soviet invasion of Sakhalin--half of that Island was pre-war Russian territory, there was no amphibious invasion, they were already on the island.
It isn't even remotely comparable to having to land on a hostile beach for a country (USSR) that had minimal sea transport at all.
Legally Karafuto was a full Japanese Prefecture and part of the home islands. This is a fact. A recent fact at the time and likely one disconnected from feelings. But a legal fact nonetheless. Soviet sea transport is irrelevant.
Sad you dodge everything else including mention of the kurils and Northern territories in the same bit just to hone in on what you think is a mistake.
This is a minor issue but I am unclear on why you are blatantly lying. Sakhalin was divided along the 50th parallel, the northern half was a Russian "oblast", there was no amphibious invasion required of South Sakhalin.
There was a small amphibious invasion of a minor outlying island (Kurils) which required a very small force and was not contested.
Trying to present it as evidence the USSR was going to land on the main home islands is either very poorly informed or simple dishonesty.
FWIW this also ignores that Truman had made it clear the USSR was not to invade the Home Islands, and reasonable evidence Stalin considered Truman's stance as credible.
Additionally the USSR drew up plans to invade Hokkaido and the USSR's own high command immediately assessed the plan would not work and was not viable.
There was not going to be a Soviet invasion of Hokkaido.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 29, 2023, 10:51:49 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 27, 2023, 11:44:18 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 27, 2023, 11:07:37 AMJos I'm not sure if you were on drugs or what happened when you typed that post, but you can't actually be serious when talking about the Soviet invasion of Sakhalin--half of that Island was pre-war Russian territory, there was no amphibious invasion, they were already on the island.
It isn't even remotely comparable to having to land on a hostile beach for a country (USSR) that had minimal sea transport at all.
Legally Karafuto was a full Japanese Prefecture and part of the home islands. This is a fact. A recent fact at the time and likely one disconnected from feelings. But a legal fact nonetheless. Soviet sea transport is irrelevant.
Sad you dodge everything else including mention of the kurils and Northern territories in the same bit just to hone in on what you think is a mistake.
This is a minor issue but I am unclear on why you are blatantly lying. Sakhalin was divided along the 50th parallel, the northern half was a Russian "oblast", there was no amphibious invasion required of South Sakhalin.
I'm confused at what you think is a "lie". That is a particular choice if words.
It's a fact that in 1943 Karafuto/South Sakhalin was made a full Japanese Prefecture, that is legally part of the inner territories, Japan-proper, the home islands.
QuoteThere was a small amphibious invasion of a minor outlying island (Kurils) which required a very small force and was not contested.
The Kurils are a long archipelago on which the Soviets landed on many islands.
Tbh I'm not sure what the legal status of the whole lot was, whether Japan in practice kept a distinction between the northern territories and the rest, but the northern terittoires are to this day de jure part of Hokkaido Prefecture and were thus also part of the inner territories.
And there absolutely was fighting in the kurils
QuoteTrying to present it as evidence the USSR was going to land on the main home islands is either very poorly informed or simple dishonesty.
FWIW this also ignores that Truman had made it clear the USSR was not to invade the Home Islands, and reasonable evidence Stalin considered Truman's stance as credible.
Additionally the USSR drew up plans to invade Hokkaido and the USSR's own high command immediately assessed the plan would not work and was not viable.
There was not going to be a Soviet invasion of Hokkaido.
It doesn't matter whether Soviet tanks rolling down the streets of Tokyo was a realistic possibility of not.
The Japanese certainly believed this was a very real and terrifying threat.
Going into alternate history territory, if the war somehow continued, I don't think the Soviets coming up with and implementing an invasion of hokkaido was too far fetched at all after pulling off the kurile invasions.
Apparently we're already getting progroms in Russia. A mob has assaulted an airport in Daguestan where a plane coming from Israel was landing.
Quote from: celedhring on October 29, 2023, 03:24:41 PMApparently we're already getting progroms in Russia. A mob has assaulted an airport in Daguestan where a plane coming from Israel was landing.
over here they're just marching in the streets and shouting for jews to be gassed. Gotta respect their culture, eh.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 29, 2023, 05:12:44 PMQuote from: celedhring on October 29, 2023, 03:24:41 PMApparently we're already getting progroms in Russia. A mob has assaulted an airport in Daguestan where a plane coming from Israel was landing.
over here they're just marching in the streets and shouting for jews to be gassed. Gotta respect their culture, eh.
Freedom of religion is a templar of Western society.
Quote from: viper37 on October 29, 2023, 05:37:52 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 29, 2023, 05:12:44 PMQuote from: celedhring on October 29, 2023, 03:24:41 PMApparently we're already getting progroms in Russia. A mob has assaulted an airport in Daguestan where a plane coming from Israel was landing.
over here they're just marching in the streets and shouting for jews to be gassed. Gotta respect their culture, eh.
Freedom of religion is a templar of Western society.
They just oppose colonialism.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2023, 06:15:11 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 29, 2023, 05:37:52 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 29, 2023, 05:12:44 PMQuote from: celedhring on October 29, 2023, 03:24:41 PMApparently we're already getting progroms in Russia. A mob has assaulted an airport in Daguestan where a plane coming from Israel was landing.
over here they're just marching in the streets and shouting for jews to be gassed. Gotta respect their culture, eh.
Freedom of religion is a templar of Western society.
They just oppose colonialism.
Which is why they all deserve to die in the most violent way possible, I suppose.
No, that's because Arab unity is a myth.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 29, 2023, 08:00:42 PMNo, that's because Arab unity is a myth.
Is there anyone who has believed in that since 1948?
Quote from: viper37 on October 29, 2023, 08:28:05 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on October 29, 2023, 08:00:42 PMNo, that's because Arab unity is a myth.
Is there anyone who has believed in that since 1948?
Seems to me like thousands of western base protestors seem to still believe in it.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2023, 06:15:11 PMThey just oppose colonialism.
Decolonization means shoving 3 year olds into Israeli household ovens while the mother watches.
Not that the Israeli supporters will ultimately come out looking good as this war drags on and Israel sieges down Gaza bit by bit over a few years.
Some people in society think that you always have to pick a side. You don't. You don't have to support Gaza just because you oppose Israel, and vice versa. Example: I strongly support Ukraine in its current war with Russia. If Ukraine carried out an attack on Russian civilians of a similar type and scale as the recent attack on Israel, I would instantly drop my support for Ukraine. I still wouldn't support Russia.
Quote from: The Brain on October 30, 2023, 05:39:39 AMSome people in society think that you always have to pick a side. You don't. You don't have to support Gaza just because you oppose Israel, and vice versa. Example: I strongly support Ukraine in its current war with Russia. If Ukraine carried out an attack on Russian civilians of a similar type and scale as the recent attack on Israel, I would instantly drop my support for Ukraine. I still wouldn't support Russia.
You have a morally bankrupt standard. Ukraine is well within it's rights to retaliate against Russia and Israel is within it's rights to debilitate Gaza.
Lots of people around me go around saying that both sides in the conflict is equally bad. That's, in my mind, to implicitly take sides for Hamas, since they are not equally bad. Especially since the same people often advocate for immediate cease-fire.
So by saying that they don't pick a side whilst at the same time spreading Hamas propaganda they are picking a side.
An observation on people around me and not meant as opposition to Brainy.
QuoteLots of people around me go around saying that both sides in the conflict is equally bad. That's, in my mind, to implicitly take sides for Hamas, since they are not equally bad. Especially since the same people often advocate for immediate cease-fire.
So by saying that they don't pick a side whilst at the same time spreading Hamas propaganda they are picking a side.
An observation on people around me and not meant as opposition to Brainy.
Propaganda isn't always inaccurate.
Israel are killing lots of civilians. I just can't watch the news anymore as you know there's going to be yet more dead babies.
Just because its in Hamas' interest for us to condemn Israel for this doesn't mean we are therefore wrong to do it. Sometimes interests can align even with absolute shit bags.
Quote from: chipwich on October 30, 2023, 06:50:42 AMQuote from: The Brain on October 30, 2023, 05:39:39 AMSome people in society think that you always have to pick a side. You don't. You don't have to support Gaza just because you oppose Israel, and vice versa. Example: I strongly support Ukraine in its current war with Russia. If Ukraine carried out an attack on Russian civilians of a similar type and scale as the recent attack on Israel, I would instantly drop my support for Ukraine. I still wouldn't support Russia.
You have a morally bankrupt standard. Ukraine is well within it's rights to retaliate against Russia and Israel is within it's rights to debilitate Gaza.
Ukraine and Israel are not well within their right to murder babies no.
An eye for an eye makes the world blind.
They are not murdering babies. Babies are dying in a war, horrible as fuck, but it is not murder. Israel is not aiming for babies and is actually trying to not kill them.
The Gazans are murdering babies, actually going into civilian houses and selectively tortyring babies to death.
They are not the same. Sure, both sides kill babies, but motive matters a lot.
Quote from: Threviel on October 30, 2023, 07:19:38 AMThey are not murdering babies. Babies are dying in a war, horrible as fuck, but it is not murder. Israel is not aiming for babies and is actually trying to not kill them.
The Gazans are murdering babies, actually going into civilian houses and selectively tortyring babies to death.
They are not the same. Sure, both sides kill babies, but motive matters a lot.
Sure. Motive matters.
Hamas purposefully slaughtered a few dozen kids.
Israel is terror bombing built up areas and a few hundred kids are happening to get caught in the explosions. Woopsy. Can't say they didn't tell them to leave despite having nowhere to go and no ability to get there.
Also worth considering that the space-time continuum matters. You can't stop a civilian from being killed last month. You absolutely can stop one from being killed next month.
Kids die in war. Horrible as fuck but that don't make the war unjust.
Hamas needs to be eradicated, not just for Israels sake but also for the people of Gazas sake. How many babies die due to their rule? How many Palestinians do Hamas kill?
Quote from: Threviel on October 30, 2023, 07:27:44 AMKids die in war. Horrible as fuck but that don't make the war unjust.
Hamas needs to be eradicated, not just for Israels sake but also for the people of Gazas sake. How many babies die due to their rule? How many Palestinians do Hamas kill?
And how do you think strategic bombing is going to eliminate a scattered terrorist group?
Quote from: chipwich on October 30, 2023, 06:50:42 AMQuote from: The Brain on October 30, 2023, 05:39:39 AMSome people in society think that you always have to pick a side. You don't. You don't have to support Gaza just because you oppose Israel, and vice versa. Example: I strongly support Ukraine in its current war with Russia. If Ukraine carried out an attack on Russian civilians of a similar type and scale as the recent attack on Israel, I would instantly drop my support for Ukraine. I still wouldn't support Russia.
You have a morally bankrupt standard. Ukraine is well within it's rights to retaliate against Russia and Israel is within it's rights to debilitate Gaza.
You have a bizarre view of what nation-states are. States do not have rights. They have powers.
Quote from: Josquius on October 30, 2023, 07:22:36 AMIsrael is terror bombing built up areas...
Yet another useful idiot buys into Hamas propaganda.
Quote from: Josquius on October 30, 2023, 07:42:53 AMAnd how do you think strategic bombing is going to eliminate a scattered terrorist group?
Still more bizarro-world bullshit. Don't use terms like "strategic bombing" when you don't know what they mean.
Quote from: grumbler on October 30, 2023, 08:22:13 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 30, 2023, 07:22:36 AMIsrael is terror bombing built up areas...
Yet another useful idiot buys into Hamas propaganda.
Oh do stop the perpetual shit munching you absolute waste.
Look at the fucking news.
No-one is strategic bombing anything, Israel doesn't even have strategic bombers. Making things up does not increase your credibility.
Edit: Which means Grumbsy is right, stop spreading Hamas propaganda.
Sorry Josq, but your editorial bullshit calling IDF bombings "terror bombings" is entirely based on whatever leftist sewer you get your information from, reddit, bad leftist journalists, dunno. But there is no actual evidence the IDF is engaging in "terror bombing", they release specific claims that every target they strike was believed to have Hamas assets or infrastructure, and they are still broadly speaking, using the "warning" system before hitting such a target that also has civilians in it.
That doesn't mean Israel hasn't bombed some targets where their intel was wrong (this isn't a war crime, but it is bad), this doesn't mean that it isn't possible Israel has bombed some targets they knew they shouldn't (this could be a war crime), but there is no evidence their bombing campaign is comparable to a terror bombing campaign where the entire effort is predicated on just terrorizing and killing civilians. My baseline expectation is some level of war crimes occur in every war, but the claim that the IDF is engaging in systemic terror bombing is without evidence--and like all claims without evidence, can be dismissed.
Quote from: Josquius on October 29, 2023, 03:08:49 PMI'm confused at what you think is a "lie". That is a particular choice if words.
It's a fact that in 1943 Karafuto/South Sakhalin was made a full Japanese Prefecture, that is legally part of the inner territories, Japan-proper, the home islands.
Ah, I see your confusion. No one in Japan considered Sakhalin to really be a home island. Its indigenous inhabitants were neither culturally Japanese or Russian, and it was colonized by both countries in the same era (1800s)--with actually greater evidence of Russian colonization and early discovery than Japanese--but they did have competing claims, before the 1905 war both sides were allowed to settle people there with sovereignty left "informal" (not dissimilar to America/Britain's situation in the Oregon Country.) It has none of the lengthy history of Japanese control or being part of Japanese culture.
Additionally the discussion wasn't about some legal technicality as to the status of the Sakhalins, it was about the military strategic reality--South Sakhalin was not invaded amphibiously, so you cannot use it as evidence that the USSR had the capacity to conduct an amphibious invasion of Hokkaido or one of the other home islands. The Kuril landings were all unopposed with minimal fighting on the islands, unless you actually believe the Japanese wouldn't contest a Soviet landing on Hokkaido they are also not comparable.
Strategic bombing:
(https://cdn.britannica.com/11/104611-050-D8F711CE/Boeing-B-52-Stratofortress-bombs-stream-Vietnam.jpg)
Not strategic bombing:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/F-16_Fighting_Falcon_launching_AGM-65H_Maverick.jpg)
The Israelis found Shani Louk. Or what is left of her. They beheaded her. Hamas had said she was in a Gazan hospital. They must have gotten their tortured and raped German girls mixed up.
I found these two Tweets from Biden (as part of a thread) striking:
QuotePresident Biden
@POTUS
Earlier I spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu about the developments in Gaza — we discussed efforts to secure the release of hostages and help Americans in Gaza leave safely, and I underscored the need to immediately and significantly increase the flow of humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza.
I reiterated that Israel has every right to defend its citizens from terrorism and a responsibility to do so in a manner consistent with international humanitarian law which prioritizes the protection of civilians.
QuotePresident Biden
@POTUS
I also spoke with President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi to share my appreciation for Egypt facilitating the delivery of humanitarian assistance to Gaza.
We reaffirmed our commitment to work together and discussed the importance of protecting civilian lives, respect for international humanitarian law, and ensuring that Palestinians in Gaza are not displaced to Egypt or any other nation.
The public message from that call with Netanyahu is very clear, especially given how supportive Biden has been. I have seen reporters saying that even within the US government there is a lack of clarity on Israel's objectives, or Israel has not been able to state them - and that conequently even within the US there is a fear that it's constructive ambiguity to enable Israel to bank support from her allies without clarifying what her plans are until it's a fait accompli. Which I think makes the state on the call with Sisi particularly striking in particular on "ensuring that Palestinians in Gaza are not displaced to Egypt or any other nation." I don't think that would be included in the very brief summary of a call if it wasn't being flagged as a US or Egyptian fear - and, it strikes me as sending a message to Netanyahu.
Separately I'm seeing more unrest, and Israeli violence in the West Bank which is obviously unconnected with any operation against Hamas. Also striking was the video of a crowd in Netanya chanting "death to Arabs" (an old song for Israel's extremist police minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir) at a student dorm which a number of Arab Israelis had barricaded themselves inside - it took a long time for the police to disperse the crowds. Also reports of other ministries having to overrule directives from Smotrich that basically blocked funding to largely Arab towns in Israel. This all, I think, gets to the risk of what this coalition including extremists will do or tolerate. On the one hand a national unity government is the right thing, on the other I think opposition parties who have joined for the duration of this war need to be very wary of what their presence will legitimate.
Meanwhile saw a Hamas leader walk out of a BBC interview over killing civilians which is something that he flatly denied Hamas did on October 7. It is striking that Hamas' position seems to basically be denialism or minimisation of that (see also the Al-Arabiya interview), compared to the too online people in the West going on about "what did you think decolonisation would look like" or "don't judge the actions of an oppressed people". It seems that line is one that Hamas thinks would be unpalatable even on a channel like Al-Arabiya (acknowledging that's Saudi). In terms of impact in the world they're not the worst, but I don't think there's a group I find more contemptible than the vicarious radicals living out their revolution and being very careless with other people's lives from the comfort of stable and safe countries.
I'm also curious where all the pro-Uighur demonstators are? Where are the vigilantes harassing incoming flights from Beijing? The Uighur population in Xinjiang is more than twice the Palestinian population and the brutality of the oppression would embarrass the most hard right Israeli hardline. Yet the only ones who seem to be really outraged about it are conservative China hawks.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 30, 2023, 09:42:02 AMI'm also curious where all the pro-Uighur demonstators are? Where are the vigilantes harassing incoming flights from Beijing? The Uighur population in Xinjiang is more than twice the Palestinian population and the brutality of the oppression would embarrass the most hard right Israeli hardline. Yet the only ones who seem to be really outraged about it are conservative China hawks.
Presumably Putin's comments about Jews has some impact within Russia.
As for protests against China's treatment of the Uigar, it's a common thing here and elsewhere.
Seems an odd what about argument to make
Yeah, I mean if you want to make the argument a lot of anti-Israeli lefties are antisemitic and that is a major driving force, there is a ton of evidence to support it.
My take it a lot of these lefty progs (especially younger ones) aren't actually antisemites, but I think antisemitism is a problem in that circle. There are lefties like Corbyn who I think are genuine antisemites, and I think lefties "of a certain age" have a greater than average chance of being antisemitic, and that has set the tone of many discussion points etc in that broader political community.
It should be well noted that the "Arab street" is just a shade less antisemitic than Adolf Hitler, so the protesters across the Arab world are basically as bigoted as it gets. It looks like a significant number of Turks are antisemitic as well.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2023, 09:52:19 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on October 30, 2023, 09:42:02 AMI'm also curious where all the pro-Uighur demonstators are? Where are the vigilantes harassing incoming flights from Beijing? The Uighur population in Xinjiang is more than twice the Palestinian population and the brutality of the oppression would embarrass the most hard right Israeli hardline. Yet the only ones who seem to be really outraged about it are conservative China hawks.
Presumably Putin's comments about Jews has some impact within Russia.
As for protests against China's treatment of the Uigar, it's a common thing here and elsewhere.
Seems an odd what about argument to make
It's not an odd one. We do not have 100k enthusiastic people in London marching for the Uighurs. We definitely have not seen attempted lynching of Chinese people in Dagestan over the Uighurs.
This is not an excuse for Israel to commit war crimes but you have to admit, the "who is doing it" (hint: the Jews) carries FAR more weight with these "concerned" people than the "what is being done" and "to whom".
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2023, 09:21:40 AMAlso striking was the video of a crowd in Netanya chanting "death to Arabs" (an old song for Israel's extremist police minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir) at a student dorm which a number of Arab Israelis had barricaded themselves inside - it took a long time for the police to disperse the crowds.
I hate to be that guy but man I loath so many elements on both sides so much. This isn't some thing where I am trying to find some enlightened centrist position here. I just loath Netanyahu and his band of nationalist right wing fucks so much. Likewise so many of the Palestinians and their supporters make little effort to conceal the fact that they just want to destroy the Jews.
It's frustrating because we have to pretend there is some room for negotiation and a peaceful settlement here but there is just such a critical mass of insane assholes on both sides that it just seems performative. It just seems like there is going to either be an end with terror or terror without end and a large percentage of the participants seem ok with that, or at least vastly prefer it to any settlement.
And all these people claiming that this is about "Decolonization" or "oppressed people seeking justice" seem full of shit. I mean are there oppressed people there seeking justice? Yes. But that isn't what this conflict is about. It is about ethnic and religious war and conflict with fanatical nutballs stirring the pot and intentionally and systematically removing there ever being hope for a peaceful settlment. They only use these oppressed people seeking justice as propaganda tools to achieve their ends and only a fool can't see it. And likewise that whole thing about how Israel is some democratic enlightened state with values we here in the west value (or at least attempt to live up to...). I mean sure are there people in Israel that value those things? Yes. But no state with those values would have people in power like they have or do the sorts of things they do.
It just sucks. I hate that my country is involved and I struggle with contempt at people who pretend like one of these groups of dicks has some noble cause or intention. There are lots of good people over there and it upsets me that they are basically just grist for the mills of nationalist garbage. Any Palestinian or Israeli who has perservered this far, through all this nonsense, earnestly and tirelessly working for peace and justice has my deep respect. They are a better person than this conflict deserves. Practically superhuman.
Sorry. That little tidbit just triggered me.
Again--it isn't both sides. Most of the right wing Israelis are significantly less vile than the Palestinians, that is simply fact.
Ben-Gvr and Smotrich and the groups they represent are about as bad as the Palestinians. But it ignores a lot to suggest that is all of Israel, it isn't. No more than the 20% of American Republicans who are Nazis represent all of America and make us as bad Russia or China.
The "midpoint" position of Israel is not "genocide all the Arabs." Even some of the most far right Israelis don't actually go that far.
Quote from: Threviel on October 30, 2023, 06:55:27 AMLots of people around me go around saying that both sides in the conflict is equally bad. That's, in my mind, to implicitly take sides for Hamas, since they are not equally bad. Especially since the same people often advocate for immediate cease-fire.
So by saying that they don't pick a side whilst at the same time spreading Hamas propaganda they are picking a side.
An observation on people around me and not meant as opposition to Brainy.
I agree, both-siders are always siding with the most guilty side, by definition. What's even more repugnant is that both-siders do that because they think it makes them look wise and intelligent, and maybe to stupid people it does. Smart people understand that both-sidism just removes the penalty for the worse side to continue doing things that make it the worst side.
Instead of both sides-ism the more logical approach is to recognize Hamas is a monstrous terror group that explicitly wants there to never be a peace, Israel is a democracy that has shitty politicians in charge, and has made a lot of mistakes, but does not round up thousands of civilians and massacre them for sport or block its own people from being able to speak freely about the topic or steal food and water from its own civilians or use its own civilians as human shields / hostages.
This actually shouldn't be that hard. The U.S. for example had many missteps in the GWOT and some outright bad behaviors, but there is no equivalency between the U.S. and al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS et al.
It isn't hard to recognize even the "better side" has problems, without reducing it to "both sides bad" equivalency.
Ohhh, you guys shouldn't say Palestinians, some useful idiot is going to come around and say that the Palestinians is not a homogenous block and that you can't treat them as that whilst at the same time ignoring your point entirely.
Quote from: Threviel on October 30, 2023, 10:28:42 AMOhhh, you guys shouldn't say Palestinians, some useful idiot is going to come around and say that the Palestinians is not a homogenous block and that you can't treat them as that whilst at the same time ignoring your point entirely.
I chose the term intentionally--due to the large scale activism within both Gaza and WB that show broad support for Hamas behavior. It may not be literally 100% of Palestinians, but there is zero evidence that Hamas terrorism enjoys anything less than significantly robust support among Palestinians and the Arab street.
Israel's worst behaviors--for example settler violence, are often illegal under Israeli law. Even in the past few months with the far right coalition settlers have been stopped from doing illegal things and a few even arrested. Among Israeli society, something like 9% of the population voted for the most extremist shit bag parties like that, Netanyahu's coalition did not win even a majority of the vote. Natanyahu was facing months of massive protests against his rule before Hamas attacked.
There just is no real equivalency, Israel is not "evenly divided" on "do we genocide", instead it is a extremist position within Israel, that even for all the bad things you can say about Likud / Netanyahu, do not represent their position. The Arab street beyond just Palestine but throughout the region is little distinguished between Nazi rallies in 1930s Germany in terms of their mindset and scope.
Quote from: Threviel on October 30, 2023, 10:28:42 AMOhhh, you guys shouldn't say Palestinians, some useful idiot is going to come around and say that the Palestinians is not a homogenous block and that you can't treat them as that whilst at the same time ignoring your point entirely.
Useful idiots will go say useful idiot things regardless of what you say. If you're going to carry water for a side deliberately murdering civilians by the hundreds, you're probably already well-versed at ignoring what is actually done and what is actually said. It's hard to not be an idiot yourself if you let idiots, useful or not, determine what you say and how you say it.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2023, 09:52:58 AMYeah, I mean if you want to make the argument a lot of anti-Israeli lefties are antisemitic and that is a major driving force, there is a ton of evidence to support it.
My take it a lot of these lefty progs (especially younger ones) aren't actually antisemites, but I think antisemitism is a problem in that circle. There are lefties like Corbyn who I think are genuine antisemites, and I think lefties "of a certain age" have a greater than average chance of being antisemitic, and that has set the tone of many discussion points etc in that broader political community.
Yeah. There is anti-semitism on the left - and I think in the UK Corbyn has helped mainstream some of that. I don't know if he's anti-semitic personally and I don't really care. People who he has aligned with and who have backed him are, and he has brought them a vastly larger platform than they had before he became leader. I think there is a bit of a risk of the left taking a "firewalls and cordons sanitaires for thee but not for me" approach. A number of those firewalls were blasted through under Corbyn and need to be put up again. For example, Dilly Hussain (70,000 followers, Huff Post contributor, columnist at Middle East Eye and Al-Jazeera English) posting that Dagestan "is the kind of welcome ALL Israelis should be receiving at the airports of Muslim-majority countries". He can hold those views, we should treat the outlets that employ him accordingly - just as we would with, say, Nick Fuentes or whoever else.
On the Glasgow pro-Palestine march they stopped outside Marks and Spencer chanting "Israel is a terrorist state". I think you need a particular type of mind to decide that targeting a department store famously founded by a Jew who'd emigrated to the UK from then Russia in the late 19th century is in some way relevant to Isreal and Palestine. It is anti-semitism to identify shops or institutions as "Jewish" (it's now a publicly listed company) and to target British Jewish life in response to Israel. I'd also note that the Glasgow march had an SNP MP booed and heckled off the mic because he called for a two state solution and refused to say Israel was committing genocide.
I think it is absolutely right that people should be able to demonstrate and I think there is something to Marie Le Conte's point that people are sort of split based on experience. People who attend or used to attend protests will tend to think "ever march will have random cranks" and people who don't/didn't will think "you're marching with those cranks!?" Both are kind of right. I accept that many people might not know, for example, that you shouldn't be joining in on "from the river to the sea". But I also think it's similar to the laundering of far-right slogans and ideas. If there's a protest every week and you're saying you should probably learn what it means, how it is interpreted by British Jews (see Simon Schama's tweet on this) and if you're comfortable endorsing that.
As I say I think it is possible to absolutely oppose Hamas' attack, to be against Israel's response or even fully anti-Zionist in your politics and to not be anti-semitic. It might take a it of effort but I think it's possible.
QuoteBen-Gvr and Smotrich and the groups they represent are about as bad as the Palestinians. But it ignores a lot to suggest that is all of Israel, it isn't. No more than the 20% of American Republicans who are Nazis represent all of America and make us as bad Russia or China.
Sure - but they are in government, crucial to keeping Netanyahu in power and they are affecting policy in Israel proper and the West Bank. They will also be influencing the options Israel looks at in Gaza and I think the opposition need to be wary of that they are not used by the extremists to legitimate what they want to do. As I say I don't think Biden would be explicitly and publicly ruling out displacing Palestinians to Egypt or other countries if there wasn't a fear that was something Israel might do. There's a reason the West is making it very clear that they support Israel but it's not a blank cheque - and I don't think they'd be doing that if there weren't concerns over what a blank cheque might lead to.
QuoteI'm also curious where all the pro-Uighur demonstators are? Where are the vigilantes harassing incoming flights from Beijing? The Uighur population in Xinjiang is more than twice the Palestinian population and the brutality of the oppression would embarrass the most hard right Israeli hardline. Yet the only ones who seem to be really outraged about it are conservative China hawks.
Yeah I think in the general public eye it is less visible. I'm never sure how much of that is because of the difficulties in covering China, for commercial companies possible impacts of covering it (e.g. on ad revenue) or, perhaps, a bit of unconscious bias. But I also think there is possibly a bit of maybe unconscious bias around ostensibly left-wing dictatorships that exists in certain institutions like the press and academia. You think of Walter Duranty, the Webbs and similar very intelligent people who averted their eyes over Mao, the Khmer Rouge, Milosevic. Because they were either on the right side or opposing the right people.
I've also been incredibly struck by the fact we've just witnessed incredibly obvious ethnic cleansing in Armenia (and Azerbaijan still refers to the rest of Armenia as "Western Azerbaijan") and it barely blipped on the public consciousness. There's lots going on but and it's not a conflict which people could easily grasp and have a good guy v bad guy, or just apply pre-existing biases - Armenia's closest ally has been Russia, for example. But I'm still slightly amazed how little that was covered. I've thought Ukraine has had a resonance with Europe - the bombing of cities, tanks moving across steps, overwhelmed train stations filled with civilians trying to get out. I found the same resonance in thousands of people with their life on their backs fleeing and I'm surprised that didn't chime with people more broadly.
But I do always find it a tell when you speak with someone who is really incredibly and sort of solely focused on Israel-Palestine. If you've spent ten minutes in left-wing circles, you know exactly who I mean. And it is that firewall point of I think you have a choice on who and how you associate with people.
When I first saw the films of the triumphant Palestinians celebrating the corpses, hostages, future rape victims and tractors I did not want to believe that a majority of the Palestinians supported this.
I tried to find data and concluded that about half of all Palestinians supported Hamas before the war. Inexplicably it seems like the conflict has increased Hamas support, nut just in Palestina but globally.
Judging from the global protests it also seems like a significant percentage of global muslims support jew-killings.
I don't really know what to do with this, it's just so dark.
It is very disheartening that it seems like merely a week after a shocking and unprecedented slaughter, the fault lines were back to exactly where they were before. If I were an Arab terrorist organization, I would wonder whether I need to limit myself in any way for the PR considerations, if even October 7 didn't move the needle in my support in the West.
If you want a summary of videos of what was going down in Dagestan this (exiled) Russian vlogger I follow discussed them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skQ12tuNarE
Apparently the rumour spread that the Tel Aviv flight which was in fact on a refuel stop toward Moscow would unload its Jews in Dagestan, which triggered the pro-Palestinian humanitarian outrage.
Besides storming the airport (with the police standing aside) the humanitarianly concerned crowd also surrounded and checked cars on the road looking for Jews. There's also a short video of an Uzbeg guy successfully proving to a big crowd that he is not Jewish therefore avoiding lynching.
Quote from: DGuller on October 30, 2023, 10:50:17 AMIt is very disheartening that it seems like merely a week after a shocking and unprecedented slaughter, the fault lines were back to exactly where they were before. If I were an Arab terrorist organization, I would wonder whether I need to limit myself in any way for the PR considerations, if even October 7 didn't move the needle in my support in the West.
Exactly. It is incredible.
Quote from: Threviel on October 30, 2023, 10:48:58 AMWhen I first saw the films of the triumphant Palestinians celebrating the corpses, hostages, future rape victims and tractors I did not want to believe that a majority of the Palestinians supported this.
I tried to find data and concluded that about half of all Palestinians supported Hamas before the war. Inexplicably it seems like the conflict has increased Hamas support, nut just in Palestina but globally.
Judging from the global protests it also seems like a significant percentage of global muslims support jew-killings.
I don't really know what to do with this, it's just so dark.
What happened with Hamas and October 7 in many way reminds me of Trump entering politics. Initially all the naive observers thought "oh, no, he really went beyond the pale, he's so done now". Eventually we figured out that Trump tapped into and legitimized a current of vileness that is widespread, and the atrocious behavior only makes him more popular among the vile masses.
Quote from: Threviel on October 30, 2023, 10:48:58 AMWhen I first saw the films of the triumphant Palestinians celebrating the corpses, hostages, future rape victims and tractors I did not want to believe that a majority of the Palestinians supported this.
I tried to find data and concluded that about half of all Palestinians supported Hamas before the war. Inexplicably it seems like the conflict has increased Hamas support, nut just in Palestina but globally.
Judging from the global protests it also seems like a significant percentage of global muslims support jew-killings.
I don't really know what to do with this, it's just so dark.
Yep. I mean there is a reason that all the other Arab countries emptied out of Jews in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Eventually it just became too scary to live there. If this was really some earnest decolonization effort and about seeking justice for the oppressed...why would that have happened? No. This is an ethnic and religious conflict. This is about destruction of the Jews and the bad actions of the Israeli government is just being used as a cover for this.
It is frustrating because you want to see the settlers removed from the West Bank. You want to see Palestine prosperous and the people over there living peacefully together. But it is hard to see any settlement that gave the Palestinians a deal that wouldn't be seen as a temporary truce in the ultimate objective of total victory. And that is just the seemingly impossible obstacle on the Palestinian side.
QuoteSure - but they are in government, crucial to keeping Netanyahu in power and they are affecting policy in Israel proper and the West Bank. They will also be influencing the options Israel looks at in Gaza and I think the opposition need to be wary of that they are not used by the extremists to legitimate what they want to do. As I say I don't think Biden would be explicitly and publicly ruling out displacing Palestinians to Egypt or other countries if there wasn't a fear that was something Israel might do. There's a reason the West is making it very clear that they support Israel but it's not a blank cheque - and I don't think they'd be doing that if there weren't concerns over what a blank cheque might lead to.
Precisely. It wasn't like the Israeli Labour Party were a bunch of cuddly kittens but the guys who have seemingly mostly been in power since 2005 over there have been at least beholden to the worst kind of ghouls.
Quote from: Tamas on October 30, 2023, 09:54:48 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2023, 09:52:19 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on October 30, 2023, 09:42:02 AMI'm also curious where all the pro-Uighur demonstators are? Where are the vigilantes harassing incoming flights from Beijing? The Uighur population in Xinjiang is more than twice the Palestinian population and the brutality of the oppression would embarrass the most hard right Israeli hardline. Yet the only ones who seem to be really outraged about it are conservative China hawks.
Presumably Putin's comments about Jews has some impact within Russia.
As for protests against China's treatment of the Uigar, it's a common thing here and elsewhere.
Seems an odd what about argument to make
It's not an odd one. We do not have 100k enthusiastic people in London marching for the Uighurs. We definitely have not seen attempted lynching of Chinese people in Dagestan over the Uighurs.
This is not an excuse for Israel to commit war crimes but you have to admit, the "who is doing it" (hint: the Jews) carries FAR more weight with these "concerned" people than the "what is being done" and "to whom".
One would expect that in a liberal democracy lynchings would not be common, whereas in a state like Russia it would be more common.
You are becoming a bit unhinged in your rhetoric.
:unsure:
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2023, 11:07:38 AMYou are becoming a bit unhinged in your rhetoric.
Which one of my two claims was unhinged? That there has been no 100k London protest in support of the Uighurs, or that there has been no reported (attempted) lynching of Chinese people in Dagestan?
I think what CC meant was that Dagestan westernizes when Chinese planes land there, and immediately reverts to its prior status when Israeli planes land there.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 30, 2023, 09:42:02 AMI'm also curious where all the pro-Uighur demonstators are? Where are the vigilantes harassing incoming flights from Beijing? The Uighur population in Xinjiang is more than twice the Palestinian population and the brutality of the oppression would embarrass the most hard right Israeli hardline. Yet the only ones who seem to be really outraged about it are conservative China hawks.
I mean, it's hardly on the same scale but there's a protest every month outside the Chinese embassy in London which is organised by left wing activists.
https://uyghursolidarityuk.org/
A cross-party Parlimaentary group are also very active to the extent thatthe leader of Xianjing cancelled a visit to London this year due to fears he could be arrested, Pinochet style.
To the surprise of no-one it seems our resident useful idiots are running out of arguments.
It's just so sad. In a conflict where babies are killed in ovens whilst the mother is raped by one side it ought to be very very very trivial to support the side that does not do that.
Instead there's more and more convoluted reasons as to why that kind of behaviour should go unpunished.
Their thinking goes something like: Sure, I'm marching with isis here demonstrating against the war, and yeah, Russia and Iran also and they are all celebrating the murders. But I only want peace and love.
Someone said that if you sit at a table with a nazi there's two nazis at the table...
The "democracies are held to a different standard" argument doesn't work for me anymore. We marched in the thousands when Russia invaded Ukraine - people didn't stay home because Russia is an authoritarian state.
Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2023, 12:02:49 PMThe "democracies are held to a different standard" argument doesn't work for me anymore. We marched in the thousands when Russia invaded Ukraine - people didn't stay home because Russia is an authoritarian state.
People marched because it would help force their governments to support Ukraine. Democracies are and should be held to a higher standard.
The alternative is a saying its ok for a democratic government to use the same terrorist tactics as HAMAS.
Quote from: Tamas on October 30, 2023, 11:16:41 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2023, 11:07:38 AMYou are becoming a bit unhinged in your rhetoric.
Which one of my two claims was unhinged? That there has been no 100k London protest in support of the Uighurs, or that there has been no reported (attempted) lynching of Chinese people in Dagestan?
The claim underlying both your post and the post by JR and there is some mystery as to why this happened in a totalitarian state.
I can definitely say that my thinking on a number of things are shifting as a result of both the initial attack and the reactions from various groups afterwards. I don't know where it'll settle for me, but I'm reexamining a bunch of things I thought settled.
In general it seems to me that so much of the discussion is anchored on divisions where some peope are "humans like me, and look at their suffering - this is appalling" and other people are more acceptable casualties because "what do you expect would happen to people like that, given what happened before" either with a "of course it's sad, but..." or more strident "people like that are not worthy of consideration because they're subhuman / evil / unimportant" added.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2023, 12:07:31 PMPeople marched because it would help force their governments to support Ukraine. Democracies are and should be held to a higher standard.
The alternative is a saying its ok for a democratic government to use the same terrorist tactics as HAMAS.
The other alternatice is that everyone should be held to the same standards as democracies.
The most consistent and visually striking displays of support for Ukraine I have seen have been in front of Russian embassies, not in front of the country's own government buildings.
Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2023, 12:16:20 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2023, 12:07:31 PMPeople marched because it would help force their governments to support Ukraine. Democracies are and should be held to a higher standard.
The alternative is a saying its ok for a democratic government to use the same terrorist tactics as HAMAS.
The other alternatice is that everyone should be held to the same standards as democracies.
Making democracies held accountable to a higher standard is literally the very definition of a double standard. Instead of trying to fit countries to an arbitrary standard, we should just assess the actions of a country / territory it on a case by case basis. Given Hamas started the current conflict, especially in the matter of how they started it, this actually lowers the bar for Israel regarding their actions. So far I have not seen any systemic wrongdoing that Israel has done that would warrant me not to continue supporting them. Rising causalities and inadequate humanitarian aid to Gaza are a concern but not yet a deal breaker.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2023, 09:13:43 AMSorry Josq, but your editorial bullshit calling IDF bombings "terror bombings" is entirely based on whatever leftist sewer you get your information from, reddit, bad leftist journalists, dunno. But there is no actual evidence the IDF is engaging in "terror bombing", they release specific claims that every target they strike was believed to have Hamas assets or infrastructure, and they are still broadly speaking, using the "warning" system before hitting such a target that also has civilians in it.
The BBC is a leftist sewer now? :lmfao:
Look at the footage yourself and tell me that doesn't look more like strategic bombing than a targeted missile strike.
Amazing how you guys keep insisting you have a monopoly on fact and anyone who sees Israel as a bunch of cunts at the moment is clearly a brainwashed leftist Hamas supporter.
QuoteAh, I see your confusion. No one in Japan considered Sakhalin to really be a home island.
Which I addressed and you ignoresd.
QuoteAdditionally the discussion wasn't about some legal technicality as to the status of the Sakhalins, it was about the military strategic reality--South Sakhalin was not invaded amphibiously, so you cannot use it as evidence that the USSR had the capacity to conduct an amphibious invasion of Hokkaido or one of the other home islands. The Kuril landings were all unopposed with minimal fighting on the islands, unless you actually believe the Japanese wouldn't contest a Soviet landing on Hokkaido they are also not comparable.
Why do you think the sakhallin invasion is relevant to talking about amphibious attacks? I'm confused about this.
And check again on the kurils. There absolutely was Japanese resistance.
Yet again for the nth time you're ignoring the relevant fact here - actual Soviet capabilities are irrelevant and it's elementary to discuss what would be required to invade hokkaido.
What is important is the japanese believed this was an imminent threat.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2023, 11:07:38 AMOne would expect that in a liberal democracy lynchings would not be common
Um...speaking as a citizen of the country the term comes from I am not sure why you would assume that.
There is something very democratic about the townspeople going out and grabbing the guilty and stringing them up in people's justice. Now, granted, not very liberal.
Doesn't look like strategic bombing to me.
Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2023, 12:15:13 PMI can definitely say that my thinking on a number of things are shifting as a result of both the initial attack and the reactions from various groups afterwards. I don't know where it'll settle for me, but I'm reexamining a bunch of things I thought settled.
In general it seems to me that so much of the discussion is anchored on divisions where some peope are "humans like me, and look at their suffering - this is appalling" and other people are more acceptable casualties because "what do you expect would happen to people like that, given what happened before" either with a "of course it's sad, but..." or more strident "people like that are not worthy of consideration because they're subhuman / evil / unimportant" added.
Yep.
On Israel /Palestine I've traditionally been quite the moderate neutral.
It's never been something I'm that interested in.
Dicks on both sides, if only the sensible people could work together and come up with a solution.
Traditionally this has always got he shouted at by people who are really invested in this issue and insist on putting Israel in the darkest light possible. Apartheid state talk, crossing over into anti semitism etc...
Seeing the footage coming out of the area though and the rampant far right islamophobic bullshit taking over many corners of the Web, and being absolutely jumped on as a Hamas loving useful idiot for anything less than a jingoist wipe gaza out attitude....
Yeah.... I'm really coming around to the fuck Israel point of view.
There remain cunts on both sides. But on the Israeli supporting side the genocidal views seem to be increasingly the plurality.
Combined with the footage coming out this does not engender sympathy for the side with all the power.
You were defending Hamas...
Quote from: Josquius on October 30, 2023, 08:34:09 AMOh do stop the perpetual shit munching you absolute waste.
Look at the fucking news.
He's right.
QuoteYou're the naiive one here. You seem to think Hamas are comic book villains who seriously believe they can actually beat Israel in a war and chuck all the Jews into the sea, rather than just the rulers of a bantustan in the corner of the country.
There's absolutely no way they actually think they can get any ethnic cleansing of land outside gaza outside of this.
That sounded like defending them to me.
Quote from: Josquius on October 30, 2023, 02:30:28 PMThe BBC is a leftist sewer now?
The BBC has not categorized the IDF campaign in Gaza as "terror bombing."
Quote from: Josquius on October 30, 2023, 02:30:28 PMWhat is important is the japanese believed this was an imminent threat.
They didn't believe this was an imminent threat.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2023, 03:05:01 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 30, 2023, 02:30:28 PMThe BBC is a leftist sewer now?
The BBC has not categorized the IDF campaign in Gaza as "terror bombing."
I see. So I don't use the exact wording the BBC do thus I'm wrong. OK. If it's one of those discussions fair enough. I really don't care.
QuoteThey didn't believe this was an imminent threat.
Yes they did. It's the key reason why they surrendered.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2023, 03:02:48 PMQuoteYou're the naiive one here. You seem to think Hamas are comic book villains who seriously believe they can actually beat Israel in a war and chuck all the Jews into the sea, rather than just the rulers of a bantustan in the corner of the country.
There's absolutely no way they actually think they can get any ethnic cleansing of land outside gaza outside of this.
That sounded like defending them to me.
LOL.
So this is the level of your zealotry is it?
Saying that Hamas aren't so stupid as to believe they actually stood a chance of conquering Israel with their raid and that they clearly had some other plan than winning a straight conventional war = defending Hamas. Bad bad.
Quote from: Josquius on October 30, 2023, 03:07:32 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2023, 03:05:01 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 30, 2023, 02:30:28 PMThe BBC is a leftist sewer now?
The BBC has not categorized the IDF campaign in Gaza as "terror bombing."
I see. So I don't use the exact wording the BBC do thus I'm wrong. OK. If it's one of those discussions fair enough. I really don't care.
Words have meaning. If you can't bother to use the correct ones why would people believe you argue in good faith?
Quote from: Josquius on October 30, 2023, 03:07:32 PMI see. So I don't use the exact wording the BBC do thus I'm wrong. OK. If it's one of those discussions fair enough. I really don't care.
Nah fuck you dude, being like "oh this is terror bombing" which explicitly means you are saying the BBC is accusing Israel of mass scale state terrorism, and then being called on it and you go "oh they didn't use that exact term."
The fuck?
Quote from: Josquius on October 30, 2023, 03:07:32 PMYes they did. It's the key reason why they surrendered.
I see we've entered into "history according to Josq and no one else" land.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2023, 03:11:53 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 30, 2023, 03:07:32 PMYes they did. It's the key reason why they surrendered.
I see we've entered into "history according to Josq and no one else" land.
He did spend a few years in Japan, and they have an "interesting" view of their own history. Is this a Japanese thing, or a Josq thing?
Ohh, look: The BBC says Josq is wrong. They don't actually say that verbatim or even at all, but I pinkie promise that's what they mean!
Quote from: HVC on October 30, 2023, 03:14:32 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2023, 03:11:53 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 30, 2023, 03:07:32 PMYes they did. It's the key reason why they surrendered.
I see we've entered into "history according to Josq and no one else" land.
He did spend a few years in Japan, and they have an "interesting" view of their own history. Is this a Japanese thing, or a Josq thing?
Belief that Soviet entry into the war was an important factor deciding to surrender? Lots of historians believe it, I certainly think it was a factor.
Belief that it was decisive? Lot of historians believe that, but it isn't a consensus.
Belief that the USSR was imminently going to land in Hokkaido and that is why Hirohito surrendered when his "Big Six" were not able to come to a consensus? I have never seen anything like credible evidence to that effect. Maybe a few people thought the Russians might invade Hokkaido but I don't see that it was a widespread belief. They were more concerned as far as I can tell in that the USSR entering the war meant their chances of being able to hold onto possession on mainland Asia went down to zero.
This is a pretty condemnatory take on British behavior in the street:
QuoteThe Telegraph
Opinion
British society will pay a terrible price for indulging extremism
Nick Timothy
Sun, October 29, 2023 at 5:30 PM EDT·5 min read
The most despicable thing about the rolling anti-Israel protests in London is that they first began not in response to Israeli military action, but to the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7.
For three consecutive weekends now, around 100,000 people have lined the streets of London to show their opposition to Israel. In the words of Lord Austin, who witnessed Saturday's march, there were "lots of signs calling for Israel to be eradicated. [But I] didn't see any calling for peace, a two-state solution, Gaza to be freed from Hamas or hostages to be taken."
For this is about hatred, not peace. Many of those attending the protests are unembarrassed about supporting the rape and murder of Israeli civilians. Some were content to cry "Allahu akbar!" and chant for "jihad", a term that the police are eager to explain might sometimes mean a peaceful inner struggle. Some shouted "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free", a genocidal demand to destroy the state of Israel and cleanse the territory of its Jews.
Others were more precise. Some called for a new intifada, like the last one which killed more than a thousand civilians in terror attacks on buses, nightclubs and restaurants. Some chanted, "Khaybar Khaybar ya yahud jaish al Mohammed Sa'ar Yaud", citing a famous massacre and warning Jews that "the army of Mohammed is coming". Some protesters carried fake dead babies soaked in blood.
The desire to play things down, to convince ourselves that this is all about a quarrel in a far away country, might be understandable, but it is profoundly wrong. The people chanting this hatred are almost certainly mostly British nationals. They are doing so in such huge numbers that the police have opted not to enforce the law for fear of wider public disorder. And while the hatred for now is targeted at Jews, it is also meant for the rest of us. One man yelled, "white trash!" at those who lined up to protect the Cenotaph from protesters. One speaker promised an intifada "from London to Gaza".
And this is just what we can see on our streets. We now know the truth about the systematic sexual abuse of vulnerable white girls by gangs of mainly Muslim men, inculcated with a belief that these dehumanised "kuffar" were worthless. We know about the Batley school teacher who, two and a half years on, remains in hiding with his family after he showed pupils a depiction of Mohammed. We know about the show trial, held in a mosque with the police participating, when a Wakefield schoolboy was accused of desecrating a Koran. In all these cases, state organisations themselves were complicit in criminality, threats and violence.
In the past few weeks, video footage from Liverpool, Bradford, Birmingham, Blackburn, Nottingham, Greenwich, London, Leeds and Cheadle show imams saying prayers for the "mujahideen" and victory for the "heroes" of Hamas. They called Jews "the guardians of Satan". They have asked Allah to: "wipe out the unbelievers"; "destroy [Jews'] houses and homes"; "purify and protect al-Aqsa from the usurper Jews"; and "get rid of the unjust Jews. Count them in numbers, and kill them entirely. Don't spare one of them."
There are many other such examples, including praise for martyrdom as a "win-win" and a sermon, at Lewisham Islamic Centre, from the resident imam Shakeel Begg, who in 2016 failed in a libel case against the BBC, which had labelled him an extremist. Most of the venues for these sermons are charities, and many, such as East London Mosque and Green Lane Mosque in Birmingham, receive millions of pounds in taxpayer funding, supposedly for providing community services.
Once, when terrorism struck here in the UK, we had anguished debates about these problems. More recently, however, we have become inured. Everything quickly moves on. When Sir David Amess was killed by an Islamist, MPs chose to discuss abuse on social media rather than the ideology that drove his murderer. When attacks occur, we are always told to wait until a conviction to debate the motive. Predictably, the debate never comes.
Meanwhile Islamist radicals, and organisations often set up and supported by foreign governments, have learned to exploit the absurdities of our modern politics. They operate the mechanics of our identity corporatism and competitive victimhood with skill. The Crown Prosecution Service, which helped to decide not to prosecute those chanting "jihad" last week, is advised on hate crime by the chair of Finsbury Park Mosque, who has praised Hamas as "martyrs of the resistance". From the military to the prison service, the public sector is full of such examples.
This extremism, and the radical diversity of our society, with its ethnic tensions and imported hatreds, means the assumptions that informed traditional British policy – pragmatic, informal, light-touch – no longer hold. The diminished commitment to shared norms and our weaker common identity means there is less social trust to sustain our freedoms in the conventional way. The sooner we realise this, the less painful will be the changes we face.
We need a more muscular approach to end this culture of domestic separatism: in immigration, law enforcement, and public policy across the board. The police and CPS must be made to uphold the law, but the law should be tightened to clamp down on incitement, hate speech and extremism. There should be a register of imams and mosques, with unacceptable behaviour leading to preaching bans and closures.
TV channels that broadcast hatred must be shut. Charities that espouse extremist belief should be closed down. Foreigners who spread Islamist ideology should be deported. The burqa should be banned in public places, and the hijab banned for school children. Islamic supplementary schools should be regulated properly. The dual jurisdiction of our national law and sharia law must end, with sharia marriages criminalised. Public funding for mosques and Islamic centres must cease.
Some will say this amounts to picking on the Islamic faith, but the problem we face emanates from the Islamic world. Nothing will change until we tell ourselves the truth – and start to act accordingly.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2023, 03:11:53 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 30, 2023, 03:07:32 PMI see. So I don't use the exact wording the BBC do thus I'm wrong. OK. If it's one of those discussions fair enough. I really don't care.
Nah fuck you dude, being like "oh this is terror bombing" which explicitly means you are saying the BBC is accusing Israel of mass scale state terrorism, and then being called on it and you go "oh they didn't use that exact term."
The fuck?
I apologise for using one of your trigger words to describe Israels poorly targeted mass bombing campaign that has levelled city blocks and caused vast numbers of civilian deaths, and sowed fear and helplessness amongst others.
Quote from: Josquius on October 30, 2023, 03:07:32 PMYes they did. It's the key reason why they surrendered.
I see we've entered into "history according to Josq and no one else" land.
Except. You know. Contemporary sources. Many prominent historians who have looked at the topic. A view that is increasingly becoming established as the accepted one by those who bother to look at the facts.
The atomic bombs single handedly won the war version of things is believed by few with any actual historic interest these days.
Quote from: Josquius on October 30, 2023, 03:11:42 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2023, 03:02:48 PMQuoteYou're the naiive one here. You seem to think Hamas are comic book villains who seriously believe they can actually beat Israel in a war and chuck all the Jews into the sea, rather than just the rulers of a bantustan in the corner of the country.
There's absolutely no way they actually think they can get any ethnic cleansing of land outside gaza outside of this.
That sounded like defending them to me.
LOL.
So this is the level of your zealotry is it?
Saying that Hamas aren't so stupid as to believe they actually stood a chance of conquering Israel with their raid and that they clearly had some other plan than winning a straight conventional war = defending Hamas. Bad bad.
Hamas does think they will eventually defeat Israel. Certainly not with this raid but eventually. I wasn't aware anybody in this thread was saying that Hamas was sure that this raid was going to lead to final victory.
Quote from: Josquius on October 30, 2023, 03:25:01 PMI apologise for using one of your trigger words to describe Israels poorly targeted mass bombing campaign that has levelled city blocks and caused vast numbers of civilian deaths, and sowed fear and helplessness amongst others.
Let's be clear on what you did--you claimed a respected Western media outlet had labeled the IDF's campaign as a terrorist act, which it had not. When called on it you fell to the defense of pretending words have no meaning and when caught in a blatant untruth, it "doesn't matter." You lied about the stance of the BBC to promote your own preferred, frankly hateful, anti-Israel narrative. Then you lashed out and said it was a "trigger word" as if that insulates you from criticism for making the false claim.
And
Quote from: Josquius on October 30, 2023, 02:42:29 PMYeah.... I'm really coming around to the fuck Israel point of view.
There remain cunts on both sides. But on the Israeli supporting side the genocidal views seem to be increasingly the plurality.
Combined with the footage coming out this does not engender sympathy for the side with all the power.
I haven't really seen this genocidal view from Israels side anywhere, but I don't really go around on too many sites. I don't doubt that it exists. With regards to Languish the discussion has been very neutral I think. I struggle to remember any poster with a genocidal view on Palestinians. We might have heated discussions sometimes, and it slants very much pro-Israel in this conflict. I think you might be projecting a bit if you find anyone here genocidal.
For my mind the footage of tortured to death civilians and women with bloody underwear slants this issue very much into pro-Israel, but to each his own I guess.
Josq's position feels fairly representative of what I'm seeing from the "online" British, e.g. reddit (which skews very left): any nuance that doesn't condemn Israel = supporting all the worst things Israel has ever done or that anyone in Israel has ever suggested doing. Ignoring or minimizing all elements of Hamas evil. Ignoring any extremism (even when blatant) behind anti-Israeli protests etc. Bog standard left wing asshat which seems common in Britain now.
Quote from: Josquius on October 30, 2023, 02:42:29 PMYeah.... I'm really coming around to the fuck Israel point of view.
There remain cunts on both sides. But on the Israeli supporting side the genocidal views seem to be increasingly the plurality.
Combined with the footage coming out this does not engender sympathy for the side with all the power.
What is the fuck Israel point of view? What does this mean?
There remain cunts on both sides but...but what exactly? You want one group of cunts to win a major victory just because they currently have less power? That seems insane. But maybe you can explain your position more thoroughly.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2023, 03:30:20 PMJosq's position feels fairly representative of what I'm seeing from the "online" British, e.g. reddit (which skews very left): any nuance that doesn't condemn Israel = supporting all the worst things Israel has ever done or that anyone in Israel has ever suggested doing. Ignoring or minimizing all elements of Hamas evil. Ignoring any extremism (even when blatant) behind anti-Israeli protests etc. Bog standard left wing asshat which seems common in Britain now.
Ahh, reddit, explains a lot. The only credible place there right now is /ncd
Hamas-huggers have even taken over the joke reddits...
Quote from: Josquius on October 30, 2023, 03:07:32 PMI see. So I don't use the exact wording the BBC do thus I'm wrong. OK. If it's one of those discussions fair enough. I really don't care.
Yes, it's one of those discussions about the moral character of the Israeli people.
Hamas fighters put a baby in an oven, shoot the father and rape the mother laughing the whole time.
"We must understand this in the context of the settler-coloninial oppression. Open-air prison! Israelis are cunts!"
What's also striking, in addition to all the other striking things already mentioned, is the dehumanizing bigotry of low expectations. Just like you can't be mad at lions for killing the cubs of the female they want to fuck, because that's what lions do, you can't expect some people to abstain from putting babies in the oven if they get a chance. That's just what they do. Now, Israelis, those cunts, they are to be held to human standards of behavior.
Quote from: DGuller on October 30, 2023, 04:08:31 PMWhat's also striking, in addition to all the other striking things already mentioned, is the dehumanizing bigotry of low expectations. Just like you can't be mad at lions for killing the cubs of the female they want to fuck, because that's what lions do, you can't expect some people to abstain from putting babies in the oven if they get a chance. That's just what they do. Now, Israelis, those cunts, they are to be held to human standards of behavior.
Yeah, but have you heard what the Israeli far right
said?
Yeah, it's very difficult to not want to shake anyone talking about this like it's a morally equal situation.
On the one hand you have some guys that's committed some of the most horrendous war crimes in human history, topping the Nazis and the Commies for cruelty, if not scale. On the other a flawed democracy.
In that situation to go "Well, you see, the democracy did some bad stuff, so going bronze age on their asses is not strange in the least, poor poor aggressors. It's actually understandable. The democracy can strike back harder, poor poor poor aggressors, it's so unfair."
It just baffles me that otherwise normally functioning adults with a normal view can be so fucking dense.
One other thought is the extreme racism. Hamas is one of the most despicable governments in the world, they do far more damage to their own people than they'll ever do to Israel.
To not want them to be overthrown, especially now that there's a political will to do it, is just weird. It's so much more important to fuck Israel than to get better government for the Palestinians.
The extreme racism on the left, to just not care about the Palestinians except in the context of fucking over Israel is striking. Minsky was on to something when he brought up the Uighurs. The left doesn't care about oppressed muslims in horrible conditions, they only seem to care about Israel.
If they had any brains they would be out in the 100s of thousands protesting Hamas...
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 30, 2023, 09:42:02 AMI'm also curious where all the pro-Uighur demonstators are? Where are the vigilantes harassing incoming flights from Beijing? The Uighur population in Xinjiang is more than twice the Palestinian population and the brutality of the oppression would embarrass the most hard right Israeli hardline. Yet the only ones who seem to be really outraged about it are conservative China hawks.
One other thing I find grim at the minute (just saw another example) is the number of videos and photos purporting to be from Gaza are actually from Syria. Often being shared by people who have not given a fuck about Syria (and some were borderline pro-Assad).
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2023, 04:27:24 PMOne other thing I find grim at the minute (just saw another example) is the number of videos and photos purporting to be from Gaza are actually from Syria. Often being shared by people who have not given a fuck about Syria (and some were borderline pro-Assad).
Yeah that's pretty shitty.
Relatedly, I didn't realize this until recently but apparently the Chinese government is going all in on antisemitism at the moment (not just "anti-zionism").
It's pretty clear that this has become a welcome vector of attack for the "anti-imperialist" coalition of China, Russia, and friends.
There should have been worldwide protests attended by hundreds of thousands of people that condemned the Hamas attacks and called for Hamas to renounce terrorism and acknowledge Israel's right to exist. The fact that didn't happen is disturbing to me.
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 30, 2023, 04:55:03 PMThere should have been worldwide protests attended by hundreds of thousands of people that condemned the Hamas attacks and called for Hamas to renounce terrorism and acknowledge Israel's right to exist. The fact that didn't happen is disturbing to me.
Why are people surprised by the results of Islamic mass migration into western countries? People generally don't change their worldview upon crossing the border into non-shitty countries.
As for the far left co-travellers: they've been traitors since at least molotov-ribbentrop.
Sucks for the people who did make the effort, but that's how the world is.
Quote from: Legbiter on October 30, 2023, 05:16:00 AMDecolonization means shoving 3 year olds into Israeli household ovens while the mother watches.
You guys have a weird view of the world.
Fortunately, Shin Bet does not share your views (https://www.timesofisrael.com/shin-bet-said-to-warn-settler-violence-could-cause-west-bank-eruption/).
But I suppose this is normal (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/30/west-bank-settlers-violence-palestinians/), expected behavior, and any opposition is the equivalent of shoving 3 years old into Israeli household ovens while the mother watches. Colonization and settlers violence, it's all a myth.
Quote from: Threviel on October 30, 2023, 04:22:19 PMthey do far more damage to their own people than they'll ever do to Israel.
Why do you think Netanyahu was so happy to turn a blind eye to their activities? Israel has been propping them since their foundation.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2023, 04:11:00 PMQuote from: DGuller on October 30, 2023, 04:08:31 PMWhat's also striking, in addition to all the other striking things already mentioned, is the dehumanizing bigotry of low expectations. Just like you can't be mad at lions for killing the cubs of the female they want to fuck, because that's what lions do, you can't expect some people to abstain from putting babies in the oven if they get a chance. That's just what they do. Now, Israelis, those cunts, they are to be held to human standards of behavior.
Yeah, but have you heard what the Israeli far right said?
I think they're on the same levels. Both want to exterminate each other. Unless you can somehow convince me the far right does not want the Palestinian's extermination? You might have a better chance at convincing me the Nazis were the good guys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWvpvlT9pJU
You totally missed the point. I was comparing what someone did to something someone said.
Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2023, 05:34:41 PMQuote from: Legbiter on October 30, 2023, 05:16:00 AMDecolonization means shoving 3 year olds into Israeli household ovens while the mother watches.
You guys have a weird view of the world.
Fortunately, Shin Bet does not share your views (https://www.timesofisrael.com/shin-bet-said-to-warn-settler-violence-could-cause-west-bank-eruption/).
But I suppose this is normal (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/30/west-bank-settlers-violence-palestinians/), expected behavior, and any opposition is the equivalent of shoving 3 years old into Israeli household ovens while the mother watches. Colonization and settlers violence, it's all a myth.
Can't you focus? Nobody said colonization and settler violence was a myth.
I got two questions:
Was the Hamas attack justified? Yes or No.
Does Israel have a right exist? Yes or No.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2023, 05:45:08 PM1) Was the Hamas attack justified? Yes or No.
2) Does Israel have a right exist? Yes or No.
1) No
2) Do Palestinians have a right to exist?
Quote from: DGuller on October 30, 2023, 04:08:31 PMWhat's also striking, in addition to all the other striking things already mentioned, is the dehumanizing bigotry of low expectations. Just like you can't be mad at lions for killing the cubs of the female they want to fuck, because that's what lions do, you can't expect some people to abstain from putting babies in the oven if they get a chance. That's just what they do. Now, Israelis, those cunts, they are to be held to human standards of behavior.
Yes, Israelis should be held to human standards of behavior.
Nazis put people in ovens. The Allies did not put all Germans in ovens. They didn't line German civilians in front of a trench to shoot them.
The Allies didn't mass rape the Japanese civilians after their surrender.
There were trials at Nuremberg for the Germans and their Allies and the Japanese war crimes were largely swept under the rug since many officers had already committed seppuku and the Emperor was granted immunity.
This is humanity. Just because your enemy lacks humanity does not mean you debase yourself into not having it.
Al-Queida had no humanity. ISIS didn't either. Afaik, America and the coallition didn't wipe Afghanistan and Syria from the face of the Earth.
Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2023, 05:38:51 PMQuote from: Threviel on October 30, 2023, 04:22:19 PMthey do far more damage to their own people than they'll ever do to Israel.
Why do you think Netanyahu was so happy to turn a blind eye to their activities? Israel has been propping them since their foundation.
They have not. This is a common fake fuck claim from ass hat lefties.
Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2023, 05:50:31 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2023, 05:45:08 PM1) Was the Hamas attack justified? Yes or No.
2) Does Israel have a right exist? Yes or No.
1) No
2) Do Palestinians have a right to exist?
This post can have one interpretation—you don't accept that Israel has a right to exist. All but typical of Israel haters (and let's be honest, Jew haters.)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2023, 05:54:07 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 30, 2023, 05:38:51 PMQuote from: Threviel on October 30, 2023, 04:22:19 PMthey do far more damage to their own people than they'll ever do to Israel.
Why do you think Netanyahu was so happy to turn a blind eye to their activities? Israel has been propping them since their foundation.
They have not. This is a common fake fuck claim from ass hat lefties.
No, it's pretty well documented.
The leader of the Islamic Brotherhood was arrested by Israel. They had information coming from the PLO that he was buying weapons and mounting an armed resistance group and promoting terror.
At the time, Israel was funding the Muslim Brotherhood as they thought they would be a good counter-balance to the secular leadership of the Palestinan resistance.
They interrogated him and he told them he was arming his group only to fight against the other Palestinians. So Israel was all too happy to liberate him.
Look up Yitzhak Segev and his testimony. He tried warning his superiors about what they were doing, but nobody listened.
More recently, you have the 1 billion US$ Quatari funds that Netanyahy let flow into Gaza toward the Hamas.
And all the other small things (https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/) meant to encourage the Hamas, rather than the PA.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2023, 05:55:18 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 30, 2023, 05:50:31 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2023, 05:45:08 PM1) Was the Hamas attack justified? Yes or No.
2) Does Israel have a right exist? Yes or No.
1) No
2) Do Palestinians have a right to exist?
This post can have one interpretation—you don't accept that Israel has a right to exist. All but typical of Israel haters (and let's be honest, Jew haters.)
Ah, I am unmasked. I secretly hate Jews.
You've already admitted you hate Arabs, so clearly it's no surprise that you do not want a free Palestinian State.
I've stated my position about Israel multiple times before since this forum exists and before: 1967 borders, alongside a free Palestinian State. No colonies on the West Bank.
I don't much care about the lives of murderous settlers in the West Bank. They love to attack and kill civilian Palestinians, it's of no concern to me when Palestinians retaliate. All they have to do is learn to live in peace and stop shooting at civilians. A life is a life, contrary to what you and Raz imply.
Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2023, 06:01:48 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2023, 05:54:07 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 30, 2023, 05:38:51 PMQuote from: Threviel on October 30, 2023, 04:22:19 PMthey do far more damage to their own people than they'll ever do to Israel.
Why do you think Netanyahu was so happy to turn a blind eye to their activities? Israel has been propping them since their foundation.
They have not. This is a common fake fuck claim from ass hat lefties.
No, it's pretty well documented.
The leader of the Islamic Brotherhood was arrested by Israel. They had information coming from the PLO that he was buying weapons and mounting an armed resistance group and promoting terror.
At the time, Israel was funding the Muslim Brotherhood as they thought they would be a good counter-balance to the secular leadership of the Palestinan resistance.
They interrogated him and he told them he was arming his group only to fight against the other Palestinians. So Israel was all too happy to liberate him.
Look up Yitzhak Segev and his testimony. He tried warning his superiors about what they were doing, but nobody listened.
More recently, you have the 1 billion US$ Quatari funds that Netanyahy let flow into Gaza toward the Hamas.
And all the other small things (https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/) meant to encourage the Hamas, rather than the PA.
"It is pretty well documented" then you go on to document things that don't match the oft repeated lefty claim that Netanyahu, or Israel in general, has "propped up Hamas."
Prior to Israel occupying Gaza, Islamist movements like the Muslim Brotherhood and its more radical offshoots were prohibited by Egypt.
When Israel occupied the strip, they largely dropped these prohibitions. The early precursor to Hamas was publicly operating as an Islamist activist and charitable group, but disavowed violence. It is this entity Israel gave direct support to—and they did imagine Islamist groups of this nature could be a bulwark against what was viewed (at the time) as more dangerous Pan-Arab Nationalism.
When it was discovered Hamas was covertly involved in bombings and other terrorist activity Israel did arrest their leader and stopped directly supporting them financially.
It is true they released the leader a short while later—but Israel has actually had various cycles of releasing Palestinian militants. Further, the guy was an elderly quadriplegic.
It should be noted that throughout the entire Arab world at this same time, militant Islamism was growing, Pan-Arab nationalism was on decline. Israel doesn't control societal changes across the entire Middle East.
Trying to at all suggest Islamist militant groups like Hamas would not have appeared, in line with all other Arab countries, save for minor Israeli financial support 35 years ago is stupid and wrong.
Israel has largely not "supported" Hamas since its nature as an active terrorist group was established.
It is true that Netanyahu and others of his party viewed Hamas as "useful" in an "enemy of my enemy" sense, they viewed Hamas as weak and manageable, and a unified Palestine under the PLO/PNA as an existential threat. This isn't the same thing as "propping up" Hamas.
Basically all modern claims of Israel "propping up" Hamas seem to conflate "allowing basic humanitarian aid into Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas, and periodically allowing rapprochement attempts to progress and Hamas' gulf allies to openly send them money they were going to covertly send them anyway." It is a strange and frankly stupid interpretation to call this "propping" up.
Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2023, 06:08:42 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2023, 05:55:18 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 30, 2023, 05:50:31 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2023, 05:45:08 PM1) Was the Hamas attack justified? Yes or No.
2) Does Israel have a right exist? Yes or No.
1) No
2) Do Palestinians have a right to exist?
This post can have one interpretation—you don't accept that Israel has a right to exist. All but typical of Israel haters (and let's be honest, Jew haters.)
Ah, I am unmasked. I secretly hate Jews.
You've already admitted you hate Arabs, so clearly it's no surprise that you do not want a free Palestinian State.
I've stated my position about Israel multiple times before since this forum exists and before: 1967 borders, alongside a free Palestinian State. No colonies on the West Bank.
I don't much care about the lives of murderous settlers in the West Bank. They love to attack and kill civilian Palestinians, it's of no concern to me when Palestinians retaliate. All they have to do is learn to live in peace and stop shooting at civilians. A life is a life, contrary to what you and Raz imply.
I hate Muslims, not Arabs. There is a big difference. It is wrong to hate people for who they are innately (Arabs being a linguistic / quasi-ethnic group.) Hating people for believing and promoting evil ideas is not wrong. Islam is evil. Arabs are not. And I separate out Muslims from their religion to a degree—I hate Muslims for what they believe, but many Muslim individuals are capable of being mostly good people in day to day life.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2023, 06:35:33 PMI hate Muslims, not Arabs. There is a big difference. It is wrong to hate people for who they are innately (Arabs being a linguistic / quasi-ethnic group.) Hating people for believing and promoting evil ideas is not wrong. Islam is evil. Arabs are not. And I separate out Muslims from their religion to a degree—I hate Muslims for what they believe, but many Muslim individuals are capable of being mostly good people in day to day life.
Right. You hate them for the religion they follow, so it's bigotry.
It's not much different from the guy who says he's not racist because he has Black friends.
Not all of them are terrorist sympathizers, just like not all Jews blindly follow Bibi.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2023, 06:32:46 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 30, 2023, 06:01:48 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2023, 05:54:07 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 30, 2023, 05:38:51 PMQuote from: Threviel on October 30, 2023, 04:22:19 PMthey do far more damage to their own people than they'll ever do to Israel.
Why do you think Netanyahu was so happy to turn a blind eye to their activities? Israel has been propping them since their foundation.
They have not. This is a common fake fuck claim from ass hat lefties.
No, it's pretty well documented.
The leader of the Islamic Brotherhood was arrested by Israel. They had information coming from the PLO that he was buying weapons and mounting an armed resistance group and promoting terror.
At the time, Israel was funding the Muslim Brotherhood as they thought they would be a good counter-balance to the secular leadership of the Palestinan resistance.
They interrogated him and he told them he was arming his group only to fight against the other Palestinians. So Israel was all too happy to liberate him.
Look up Yitzhak Segev and his testimony. He tried warning his superiors about what they were doing, but nobody listened.
More recently, you have the 1 billion US$ Quatari funds that Netanyahy let flow into Gaza toward the Hamas.
And all the other small things (https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/) meant to encourage the Hamas, rather than the PA.
"It is pretty well documented" then you go on to document things that don't match the oft repeated lefty claim that Netanyahu, or Israel in general, has "propped up Hamas."
Prior to Israel occupying Gaza, Islamist movements like the Muslim Brotherhood and its more radical offshoots were prohibited by Egypt.
When Israel occupied the strip, they largely dropped these prohibitions. The early precursor to Hamas was publicly operating as an Islamist activist and charitable group, but disavowed violence. It is this entity Israel gave direct support to—and they did imagine Islamist groups of this nature could be a bulwark against what was viewed (at the time) as more dangerous Pan-Arab Nationalism.
When it was discovered Hamas was covertly involved in bombings and other terrorist activity Israel did arrest their leader and stopped directly supporting them financially.
It is true they released the leader a short while later—but Israel has actually had various cycles of releasing Palestinian militants. Further, the guy was an elderly quadriplegic.
It should be noted that throughout the entire Arab world at this same time, militant Islamism was growing, Pan-Arab nationalism was on decline. Israel doesn't control societal changes across the entire Middle East.
Trying to at all suggest Islamist militant groups like Hamas would not have appeared, in line with all other Arab countries, save for minor Israeli financial support 35 years ago is stupid and wrong.
Israel has largely not "supported" Hamas since its nature as an active terrorist group was established.
It is true that Netanyahu and others of his party viewed Hamas as "useful" in an "enemy of my enemy" sense, they viewed Hamas as weak and manageable, and a unified Palestine under the PLO/PNA as an existential threat. This isn't the same thing as "propping up" Hamas.
Basically all modern claims of Israel "propping up" Hamas seem to conflate "allowing basic humanitarian aid into Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas, and periodically allowing rapprochement attempts to progress and Hamas' gulf allies to openly send them money they were going to covertly send them anyway." It is a strange and frankly stupid interpretation to call this "propping" up.
"Basic humanitarian aid" from Qatar, coming from shady individuals transporting cash in suitcases. Sure. Why not?
It's like the Italian mafia helping with the war effort in WW2.
The UN does humanitarian aid. US aid does humanitarian aid. The Red Cross does humanitarian aid. The Red Crescent does humanitarian aid.
I don't think people linked with terrorism in Qatar do humanitarian aid.
As for the rest, I stand by my word. Israel helped with the creation of Hamas by turning a blind eye in the early to mid 80s while it was being formed, and they kept doing it over the years as it grew.
Netanyahy had a chief responsibility to protect its people, but he prefered to protect the settlers specifically and send the IDF to murder the Palestinians in the West Bank to make more room for more settlers.
He could have consolidated on Israel borders, or pushed at anytime in Hamas territory to destroy the tunnels while they were weaker. But he never did. Even when warned, he refused to move the IDF from their position.
I guess he only hates Muslims when they unarmed.
Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2023, 05:50:31 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2023, 05:45:08 PM1) Was the Hamas attack justified? Yes or No.
2) Does Israel have a right exist? Yes or No.
1) No
2) Do Palestinians have a right to exist?
Sure, but the Gaza strip situation is not sustainable. Also, they lost all the wars they started for territory. Might be time to try a different strategy.
Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2023, 05:50:31 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2023, 05:45:08 PM1) Was the Hamas attack justified? Yes or No.
2) Does Israel have a right exist? Yes or No.
1) No
2) Do Palestinians have a right to exist?
I have never said the Palestinians have no right to exist or that Palestine has no right to exist.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2023, 07:17:26 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 30, 2023, 05:50:31 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2023, 05:45:08 PM1) Was the Hamas attack justified? Yes or No.
2) Does Israel have a right exist? Yes or No.
1) No
2) Do Palestinians have a right to exist?
I have never said the Palestinians have no right to exist or that Palestine has no right to exist.
You said people got displaced all the time and it was no big deal. If that's not a negation of their right to exists, I don't know what it is...
Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2023, 07:07:01 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2023, 06:35:33 PMI hate Muslims, not Arabs. There is a big difference. It is wrong to hate people for who they are innately (Arabs being a linguistic / quasi-ethnic group.) Hating people for believing and promoting evil ideas is not wrong. Islam is evil. Arabs are not. And I separate out Muslims from their religion to a degree—I hate Muslims for what they believe, but many Muslim individuals are capable of being mostly good people in day to day life.
Right. You hate them for the religion they follow, so it's bigotry.
It's not much different from the guy who says he's not racist because he has Black friends.
Not all of them are terrorist sympathizers, just like not all Jews blindly follow Bibi.
No, I hate people who believe and support evil ideologies. I hate Nazis. If that makes me an anti-Nazi bigot. Sure, I'll sign up. It has no comparison to hating black people--which is racism, e.g. the hating of people based on their superficial race.
Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2023, 07:18:42 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2023, 07:17:26 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 30, 2023, 05:50:31 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2023, 05:45:08 PM1) Was the Hamas attack justified? Yes or No.
2) Does Israel have a right exist? Yes or No.
1) No
2) Do Palestinians have a right to exist?
I have never said the Palestinians have no right to exist or that Palestine has no right to exist.
You said people got displaced all the time and it was no big deal. If that's not a negation of their right to exists, I don't know what it is...
Yeah, so? Germans got displaced, I still think Germans have a right to exist.
There are two main forms of Anti-Israeli bias. One is primarily anti-American and the other Antisemitic. These aren't the only forms, but the most common. There is some over lap between the two, but the anti-American ones do their best to downplay what the Antisemitic ones are saying.
The first one is Anti-American. It's primarily a left-wing view, but it does have it's right wing adherents who want to see the US return to isolationism. They see Israel primarily as a US proxy in the Middle East. Israel is proof that America is imperialist. They put a colony right in the Middle East! The US is racist so by extension Zionism is racism. It is a white stain on a brown region. The coming the Zionists destroyed the tranquil, tolerant life of Ottoman Palestine. The Israelis are colonialist-oppressor who only exists because of the American colossus. The people with this view mostly live in the West and make up the crowds protesting the bombings right now, though some actors like Russia and China fit in this category as well. It's not that they hate Jews, they are just indifferent to Jewish opinion and suffering. As settlers-colonists lives don't matter much. And well, most Jews are American...
One of the most striking things about these people is that do not know and certainly don't want to know what the Palestinians are saying and doing. Some are still in denial what Hamas is or what it has recently done. They downplay the overwhelming antisemitism in the Arab world and especially Palestine. When faced with what Hamas has done they equivocate or change the subject. A few justified the actions. Most of the these people don't care what happens after Palestine has achieved it's victory, not really. They didn't care what happened to the Afghans or the Iraqis after the US left. They don't care about the Uygurs or the Armenians. If you go back farther their predecessors didn't care what happened to the Vietnamese or the Cambodians. Freedom for Palestine doesn't mean freedom for Palestinians. It means the defeat of the US and their Israeli lackies.
The second group are the Antisemites. These are mostly Muslim and their views can be found on television across the Muslim world, and from the highest mosque to the lowest children's textbook. It's fairly simple wordview, and one that animates the main Palestinian factions : The Jew is a louse. The Arabs were beaten and colonized by British and French in the past, that's one thing. But to be beaten by a Jew! That lowly race of merchants that were supposed to be subordinate to Muslims? That was too much! The Jew is a bloodsucker, both figuratively and literally. He is born of apes and pigs. He commands the sharks in the ocean and the birds in the air. He kills Palestinians, steals their organs and eats them. He controls the US, the markets and the media. No calamity is too small or too to great be free of Jewish influence. The people who hold this view aren't interested in peace. The actions of Israeli settlers is ultimately inconsequential. They want Israel gone. Any treaty with the Zionist entity is a temporary truce.
That is almost perfectly stated Raz.
I do think there are some "good but ill informed" people who are also "reflexively" anti-Israeli, more like a "milquetoast" version of the anti-American camp.
Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2023, 05:41:49 PMI think they're on the same levels. Both want to exterminate each other. Unless you can somehow convince me the far right does not want the Palestinian's extermination? You might have a better chance at convincing me the Nazis were the good guys.
I don't think being openly unwilling to be convinced is as strong of an argument as you think it is. It's definitely a revealing argument, though, especially the manner in which it is stated.
Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2023, 06:08:42 PMI don't much care about the lives of murderous settlers in the West Bank. They love to attack and kill civilian Palestinians, it's of no concern to me when Palestinians retaliate. All they have to do is learn to live in peace and stop shooting at civilians. A life is a life, contrary to what you and Raz imply.
You are talking about 700,000 people...
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2023, 03:27:53 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 30, 2023, 03:25:01 PMI apologise for using one of your trigger words to describe Israels poorly targeted mass bombing campaign that has levelled city blocks and caused vast numbers of civilian deaths, and sowed fear and helplessness amongst others.
Let's be clear on what you did--you claimed a respected Western media outlet had labeled the IDF's campaign as a terrorist act, which it had not. When called on it you fell to the defense of pretending words have no meaning and when caught in a blatant untruth, it "doesn't matter." You lied about the stance of the BBC to promote your own preferred, frankly hateful, anti-Israel narrative. Then you lashed out and said it was a "trigger word" as if that insulates you from criticism for making the false claim.
I made no such claim. Such a predictable lie from you.
You just can't accept that people are capable of using their eyes and making judgements off their own back. Clearly if somebody is saying something bad about Israel its because an obscure nasty useful idiot lefty corner of the internet told them to say that.
That I am getting the bulk of my news about this situation from that famed bastion of the radical left the BBC and still came to the conclusion Israel aren't exactly on their best behaviour?
It just doesn't compute in your black and white world view.
I know what you want to say. I'm an anti-semite right?
'Hateful anti-Israel narrative'. Yeah. Totally. Bombing civilians is bad- that's a hateful thing to say!
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2023, 03:30:20 PMJosq's position feels fairly representative of what I'm seeing from the "online" British, e.g. reddit (which skews very left): any nuance that doesn't condemn Israel = supporting all the worst things Israel has ever done or that anyone in Israel has ever suggested doing. Ignoring or minimizing all elements of Hamas evil. Ignoring any extremism (even when blatant) behind anti-Israeli protests etc. Bog standard left wing asshat which seems common in Britain now.
LOL!
Such amazing projection here. Positively Trumpian.
You are the one taking a stance that any narrative that doesn't condemn the Palestinians and defend whatever the Israelis are doing = supporting all the worst things the Palestinians have ever done, supporting Islamic extremism overall.
Bog standard right wing asshat which seems common in the west now.
Quote from: DGuller on October 30, 2023, 04:08:31 PMWhat's also striking, in addition to all the other striking things already mentioned, is the dehumanizing bigotry of low expectations. Just like you can't be mad at lions for killing the cubs of the female they want to fuck, because that's what lions do, you can't expect some people to abstain from putting babies in the oven if they get a chance. That's just what they do. Now, Israelis, those cunts, they are to be held to human standards of behavior.
We're speaking from a western point of view thus putting ourselves in Israel's shoes. Israel are our point-of-view characters in the Levant, they are the ones whose thinking and behaviour we think are the same as ours (often with key oversights where Israel is uniquely weird, often for the worse). Its natural we empathise more with their situation.
As to dehumanising the killers and seeing them as just a force of nature....This is how fighting crime on a macro level works.
A Hamas terrorist who put babies in an oven* is a horrible criminal scum bag who needs the book slammed into his face. You won't find many people short of the absolute extremes who thinks this is remotely OK. Find that guy, put him on trial, hang him by the neck until dead... The only quibbles would be are you sure you got the right guy and general arguments against the death penalty overall.
However this is a given. Obviously in our societies what he did is shitting all over what is moral and legal. We know he's terrible and did a very very bad thing.
But this is all neglecting the key problem in favour of mutual masturbation on how awful this was. The key question is- how do we stop this happening again? How and why did this guy become so absolutely fucked up in the head that he would do such a thing? Can we stop more people in the future from going down the same path?
The Israelis are the ones with the bulk of the power over Gaza. Creating a situation that breeds more or less killers is something that they can take action to nudge the way they want.
Given as mentioned they are the side whose shoes we naturally put ourselves in and the side that is more open to nudging from abroad (see apartheid South Africa) and the side with the most agency... It makes sense to look at the issue from their point of view and what they can do to discourage extremism.
* Incidentally curious you guys keep mentioning this one crime. <half a dozen murdered kids can make irrelevant the thousands Israel have killed because the manner of the killings was nasty enough? Clearly shows emotion is being pushed over logic.
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2023, 03:39:40 PMQuote from: Josquius on October 30, 2023, 02:42:29 PMYeah.... I'm really coming around to the fuck Israel point of view.
There remain cunts on both sides. But on the Israeli supporting side the genocidal views seem to be increasingly the plurality.
Combined with the footage coming out this does not engender sympathy for the side with all the power.
What is the fuck Israel point of view? What does this mean?
There remain cunts on both sides but...but what exactly? You want one group of cunts to win a major victory just because they currently have less power? That seems insane. But maybe you can explain your position more thoroughly.
Maybe I missed a hyphen. The Fuck-Israel point of view. Those I mentioned in that post who are really invested in this issue and jump down the throats of those trying to stay neutral if they say anything that defends Israel.
I support civilians not being slaughtered.
You think this gives Hamas a win? Then give Hamas that win. Its a meaningless victory. Personally I think proving themselves better people would serve the Israelis better but hey-ho.
Bombing the shit out of civilian areas is a pretty crap way to tackle a terrorist group. This is outside of my area of expertise so I couldn't begin to guess at a workable solution. Something more hearts and minds based would seem smarter, give an actual viable alternative to the people of Gaza. Pure handwavium guess work, there's more informed minds than mine should be working on this.
What I can say for sure is that the solution isn't doing the same thing time and again in the hope that this time maybe the bombs will end terrorism and not slaughter thousands of innocent civilians, in the process providing the conditions for many more to be the terrorists of the future.
Quote from: Threviel on October 30, 2023, 03:51:33 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2023, 03:30:20 PMJosq's position feels fairly representative of what I'm seeing from the "online" British, e.g. reddit (which skews very left): any nuance that doesn't condemn Israel = supporting all the worst things Israel has ever done or that anyone in Israel has ever suggested doing. Ignoring or minimizing all elements of Hamas evil. Ignoring any extremism (even when blatant) behind anti-Israeli protests etc. Bog standard left wing asshat which seems common in Britain now.
Ahh, reddit, explains a lot. The only credible place there right now is /ncd
Hamas-huggers have even taken over the joke reddits...
Complete side-bar but you might want to check reddit again.
I stopped posting even a little there some time ago as the moderation of some major subs has shifted sharply to the right- perhaps born out of reddit's business fuckery chasing away the more balanced folks with time to spare.
Might I ask you two questions?
Do you think that Israel, the state of Israel that is, is willfully targeting civilians in order to kill civilians?
Do you think that Gaza, the government of Gaza that is, is willfully targeting civilians in order to kill civilians?
So, according to this (https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/israeli-ministry-concept-paper-proposes-transferring-gaza-civilians-to-egypt-s-sinai-with-canada-as-a-possible-final-destination-1.6623901?) Israel has a "concept paper" that involves transferring Palestinians to Egypt with the idea of them eventually going to a third destination like Canada.
1. Did they check with Canada? Not sure now's the right political climate for that.
2. Surely that's illegal.
Did they uncover the British plans from the 1910s?
QuoteBut its conclusions deepened long-standing Egyptian fears that Israel wants to make Gaza into Egypt's problem, and revived for Palestinians memories of their greatest trauma -- the uprooting of hundreds of thousands of people who fled or were forced from their homes during the fighting surrounding Israel's creation in 1948.
I love how this is always phrased as some sort of "unique trauma." Meanwhile large ethnic population transfers were all but bog common throughout Europe in that era. Look at a map of % of Greek / Pontic Greek population in various districts in Anatolia before and after 1920-22. Or look at the % of German population in various countries and locations throughout Eastern Europe prior to 1945. Or Jewish population in various districts throughout the Muslim world.
For some reason, and I think we all know what that reason is, only one of these groups has been martyred for all time over it.
Quote from: Josquius on October 31, 2023, 03:41:15 AMI made no such claim. Such a predictable lie from you.
You literally said "terror bombing" came from the BBC, your lying has reached a pretty tedious level at this point.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2023, 01:09:12 AMQuote from: viper37 on October 30, 2023, 06:08:42 PMI don't much care about the lives of murderous settlers in the West Bank. They love to attack and kill civilian Palestinians, it's of no concern to me when Palestinians retaliate. All they have to do is learn to live in peace and stop shooting at civilians. A life is a life, contrary to what you and Raz imply.
You are talking about 700,000 people...
And you don't care about how many Palestinians... ?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 31, 2023, 07:56:40 AMQuoteBut its conclusions deepened long-standing Egyptian fears that Israel wants to make Gaza into Egypt's problem, and revived for Palestinians memories of their greatest trauma -- the uprooting of hundreds of thousands of people who fled or were forced from their homes during the fighting surrounding Israel's creation in 1948.
I love how this is always phrased as some sort of "unique trauma." Meanwhile large ethnic population transfers were all but bog common throughout Europe in that era. Look at a map of % of Greek / Pontic Greek population in various districts in Anatolia before and after 1920-22. Or look at the % of German population in various countries and locations throughout Eastern Europe prior to 1945. Or Jewish population in various districts throughout the Muslim world.
For some reason, and I think we all know what that reason is, only one of these groups has been martyred for all time over it.
Or the Jews all over the Middle East that were forced to re-locate to Israel, or at least out of whatever Arab state they lived in since 79 AD.
Quote from: DGuller on October 30, 2023, 11:45:17 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 30, 2023, 05:41:49 PMI think they're on the same levels. Both want to exterminate each other. Unless you can somehow convince me the far right does not want the Palestinian's extermination? You might have a better chance at convincing me the Nazis were the good guys.
I don't think being openly unwilling to be convinced is as strong of an argument as you think it is. It's definitely a revealing argument, though, especially the manner in which it is stated.
Look, when an Israeli defense Minister says an IDF soldier who shot an unarmed, non threatening Palestinian should not investigated but should be congratulated, I think it's pretty telling, don't you think? I posted the quote before. He thought the man who filmed it should be sanctioned, but the sniper should received a medal.
In any Western army, such a crime would have been investigated, and the soldier would have been tried. Only Trump would have lauded his effort.
That some people here would defend this kind of behavior is telling of a certain mindframe. I was supposed to be anti-muslim, now I'm also a Jew-hater, so why not? I guess I'll join CdM in the club of I hate everyone?
For the record, once more, I only hate religious extremists. Christians, Jews or Muslims, it does not make any difference to me.
Quote from: Josquius on October 31, 2023, 03:41:15 AMI made no such claim. Such a predictable lie from you.
You just can't accept that people are capable of using their eyes and making judgements off their own back. Clearly if somebody is saying something bad about Israel its because an obscure nasty useful idiot lefty corner of the internet told them to say that.
That I am getting the bulk of my news about this situation from that famed bastion of the radical left the BBC and still came to the conclusion Israel aren't exactly on their best behaviour?
It just doesn't compute in your black and white world view.
I know what you want to say. I'm an anti-semite right?
'Hateful anti-Israel narrative'. Yeah. Totally. Bombing civilians is bad- that's a hateful thing to say!
Part of the Hamas raid was the use of drones dropping explosives to disable the sensors on which the automated Israeli defense posts along the border rely to operate. I don't know if these posts are manned or fully automated. If someone were to describe these attacks as "another Hiroshima" would you defend their statements the same way your are defending yours? After all, that would just be another example of "oh we're having that argument," the one you don't care about.
The point you seem to be incapable of fathoming is that in addition to the moral aspect of the bombing of Gaza there is an empirical aspect as well. I personally, and I like to think most people here as well, think that Israel has a right to self defense, which includes retaliation and/or the elimination of the enemy threat. I also think acts which go beyond this to pure cruelty, the
purposeful killing of innocent babies, should not be done by a civilized people in this day and age, but that in the process of killing Hamas innocent people will suffer.
You're free to hold the position that the number of acceptable Palestinian casualties is zero. But please be honest about it. Please don't misreport information as a backdoor to arguing this position. That would make what you're doing either a con--you're trying to trick us into supporting your position--or a demonstration of your ignorance of the meaning of terror bombing.
I think when large numbers of posters with divergent views and nothing else in common are taking exception to what you said, that might be a good sign for you to reassess your position.
Quote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 09:15:31 AMFor the record, once more, I only hate religious extremists. Christians, Jews or Muslims, it does not make any difference to me.
That's the real enemy but the Anglosphere has gone soft against those people.
Quote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 09:15:31 AMQuote from: DGuller on October 30, 2023, 11:45:17 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 30, 2023, 05:41:49 PMI think they're on the same levels. Both want to exterminate each other. Unless you can somehow convince me the far right does not want the Palestinian's extermination? You might have a better chance at convincing me the Nazis were the good guys.
I don't think being openly unwilling to be convinced is as strong of an argument as you think it is. It's definitely a revealing argument, though, especially the manner in which it is stated.
Look, when an Israeli defense Minister says an IDF soldier who shot an unarmed, non threatening Palestinian should not investigated but should be congratulated, I think it's pretty telling, don't you think? I posted the quote before. He thought the man who filmed it should be sanctioned, but the sniper should received a medal.
In any Western army, such a crime would have been investigated, and the soldier would have been tried. Only Trump would have lauded his effort.
That some people here would defend this kind of behavior is telling of a certain mindframe. I was supposed to be anti-muslim, now I'm also a Jew-hater, so why not? I guess I'll join CdM in the club of I hate everyone?
For the record, once more, I only hate religious extremists. Christians, Jews or Muslims, it does not make any difference to me.
Last I checked Israel actually does investigate incidents like that. Politicians frequently say shitty things. Lots of American politicians have said bellicose things out of sync with international law. What is more important is does the U.S. military follow the law, and largely it does. Same for the IDF.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2023, 08:09:02 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 30, 2023, 07:07:01 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2023, 06:35:33 PMI hate Muslims, not Arabs. There is a big difference. It is wrong to hate people for who they are innately (Arabs being a linguistic / quasi-ethnic group.) Hating people for believing and promoting evil ideas is not wrong. Islam is evil. Arabs are not. And I separate out Muslims from their religion to a degree—I hate Muslims for what they believe, but many Muslim individuals are capable of being mostly good people in day to day life.
Right. You hate them for the religion they follow, so it's bigotry.
It's not much different from the guy who says he's not racist because he has Black friends.
Not all of them are terrorist sympathizers, just like not all Jews blindly follow Bibi.
No, I hate people who believe and support evil ideologies. I hate Nazis. If that makes me an anti-Nazi bigot. Sure, I'll sign up. It has no comparison to hating black people--which is racism, e.g. the hating of people based on their superficial race.
Do you believe all Christians support evil ideologies? It seems to me Christianity is rooted in evil. Massacres, pogroms, crusades, destruction, violence, it's all it's ever amounted to since the moment they achieve a modicum of power in the Roman Empire. And there are lots of worrying trends coming from your country and from Eastern Europe. Attempts to to violently overturn elections, supporting dictators, violent attacks against the LGBT communities, witch hunts in Africa, even the use of terror attacks when they don't have an army at their disposal.
I don't see how that's any better. Thankfully, they are fewer in numbers. And they are kept in check, by now, by an equally violent leftist mob. What will it be once they have won and eradicated their opponents? It won't be any better than Russia or Hungary.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2023, 08:24:09 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 30, 2023, 07:18:42 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2023, 07:17:26 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 30, 2023, 05:50:31 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2023, 05:45:08 PM1) Was the Hamas attack justified? Yes or No.
2) Does Israel have a right exist? Yes or No.
1) No
2) Do Palestinians have a right to exist?
I have never said the Palestinians have no right to exist or that Palestine has no right to exist.
You said people got displaced all the time and it was no big deal. If that's not a negation of their right to exists, I don't know what it is...
Yeah, so? Germans got displaced, I still think Germans have a right to exist.
They have their own country, afaik. No one is invading Germany and constantly displacing Germans. No one is shooting German civilians and calling them terrorist the moment to retaliate against their armed assailants, conflating them with the scums that attack civilians.
Quote from: Gups on October 30, 2023, 11:37:24 AMI mean, it's hardly on the same scale but there's a protest every month outside the Chinese embassy in London which is organised by left wing activists.
https://uyghursolidarityuk.org/
That is a very different looking sort of protest in size, manner, and virtually other respect than the ones we've been seeing in past weeks.
Quote from: Josephus on October 31, 2023, 05:22:59 AMSo, according to this (https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/israeli-ministry-concept-paper-proposes-transferring-gaza-civilians-to-egypt-s-sinai-with-canada-as-a-possible-final-destination-1.6623901?) Israel has a "concept paper" that involves transferring Palestinians to Egypt with the idea of them eventually going to a third destination like Canada.
1. Did they check with Canada? Not sure now's the right political climate for that.
2. Surely that's illegal.
On the first point, I don't think they're going to find a convenient third country willing to take millions of Palestinians - or significant portion. I think Canada is hypothetically one of the best bets globally, and I don't think it'd fly here.
If they do, it'll also have the medium term effect of turning that country against Israel as hundreds of thousands or millions of Palestinian voters is going to impact their foreign policy.
That said, a concept paper is not a policy - it's a discussion. It may well be that the concept paper reached the same conclusion (or some other reason why the idea shouldn't be pursued).
Of course (and I said so). I was contesting your assertion that the only people outraged by treatment of the Uigars were conservatives.
QuotePart of the Hamas raid was the use of drones dropping explosives to disable the sensors on which the automated Israeli defense posts along the border rely to operate. I don't know if these posts are manned or fully automated. If someone were to describe these attacks as "another Hiroshima" would you defend their statements the same way your are defending yours? After all, that would just be another example of "oh we're having that argument," the one you don't care about.
That would make no sense.
If it was a nuclear device used, no matter how weak and ineffectual, then I do expect the media would say its another Hiroshima and eyes would roll- I think I recall this being said around Fukushima quite ridiculously.
But nothing nuclear was involved so I'm not sure I see the relevance here . I never said what Israel was doing was another 9/11 or Dresden or whatever. Merely that they were flattening civilian areas of Gaza with no military value. Which they are.
QuoteThe point you seem to be incapable of fathoming is that in addition to the moral aspect of the bombing of Gaza there is an empirical aspect as well. I personally, and I like to think most people here as well, think that Israel has a right to self defense, which includes retaliation and/or the elimination of the enemy threat. I also think acts which go beyond this to pure cruelty, the purposeful killing of innocent babies, should not be done by a civilized people in this day and age, but that in the process of killing Hamas innocent people will suffer.
Israel has a right to self defence.
What they are doing is not self defence.
Being victim of a terrorist attack doesn't give a state carte blanche
QuoteI think when large numbers of posters with divergent views and nothing else in common are taking exception to what you said, that might be a good sign for you to reassess your position.
On the contrary I take it as further sign that I am right and the reach and depth of the 'Israel can do no wrong' position really is hitting worrying levels.
Drop preconceptions take a step back and look at what is happening.
This is not OK.
The correct response to a bunch of innocent children being murdered isn't to kill yet more innocent children.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 31, 2023, 07:57:12 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 31, 2023, 03:41:15 AMI made no such claim. Such a predictable lie from you.
You literally said "terror bombing" came from the BBC, your lying has reached a pretty tedious level at this point.
:lmfao:
No I didn't. Do stop lying when its right there in black and white (well. Pale greyish-blue on my screen).
Quote from: Josquius on October 31, 2023, 10:29:09 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 31, 2023, 07:57:12 AMYou literally said "terror bombing" came from the BBC, your lying has reached a pretty tedious level at this point.
:lmfao:
No I didn't. Do stop lying when its right there in black and white (well. Pale greyish-blue on my screen).
Short term amnesia? :unsure:
Quote from: Josquius on October 31, 2023, 10:29:09 AMThat would make no sense.
If it was a nuclear device used, no matter how weak and ineffectual, then I do expect the media would say its another Hiroshima and eyes would roll- I think I recall this being said around Fukushima quite ridiculously.
But nothing nuclear was involved so I'm not sure I see the relevance here . I never said what Israel was doing was another 9/11 or Dresden or whatever. Merely that they were flattening civilian areas of Gaza with no military value. Which they are.
Great. So Hiroshima has an irreducible essence, who's meaning does not change depending on whether you like them or not.
Now you are proposing an irreducible essence of terror bombing. That's great too. Have the details you mentioned to support your use of terror bombing been entered into evidence, or are you assuming they are true? How do you know the civilian areas which are being flattened have no military value?
QuoteIsrael has a right to self defence.
What they are doing is not self defence.
Being victim of a terrorist attack doesn't give a state carte blanche
Which facts did you assess to come to the conclusion that what Israel is doing is not self defense?
QuoteOn the contrary I take it as further sign that I am right and the reach and depth of the 'Israel can do no wrong' position really is hitting worrying levels.
Drop preconceptions take a step back and look at what is happening.
This is not OK.
The correct response to a bunch of innocent children being murdered isn't to kill yet more innocent children
I think the correct response to a bunch of innocent children being murdered is to kill the people who did it, and if it is impossible to do that without killing innocents because of factors outside your control, then I am willing to accept some level of civilian casualties.
The part about being right because everyone says you're wrong frankly sounds bonkers. Like Unabomber thinking.
Quote from: HVC on October 31, 2023, 10:39:29 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 31, 2023, 10:29:09 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 31, 2023, 07:57:12 AMYou literally said "terror bombing" came from the BBC, your lying has reached a pretty tedious level at this point.
:lmfao:
No I didn't. Do stop lying when its right there in black and white (well. Pale greyish-blue on my screen).
Short term amnesia? :unsure:
To be fair, he didn't directly say that BBC called it terror bombing, but the implication was so strong and unambiguous given what he was replying to that he may as well have said that.
When someone says "whoever said this dress looks good is an idiot", and you reply "so your wife is an idiot?", you didn't directly say that my wife said this dress looks good, but to deny that for all intents and purposes you did say that is still full on dishonest. Not weasely or slick, just plain dishonest.
That whole line of discussion is peak languish.
Quote from: Josquius on October 30, 2023, 02:30:28 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2023, 09:13:43 AMSorry Josq, but your editorial bullshit calling IDF bombings "terror bombings" is entirely based on whatever leftist sewer you get your information from, reddit, bad leftist journalists, dunno. But there is no actual evidence the IDF is engaging in "terror bombing", they release specific claims that every target they strike was believed to have Hamas assets or infrastructure, and they are still broadly speaking, using the "warning" system before hitting such a target that also has civilians in it.
The BBC is a leftist sewer now? :lmfao:
Look at the footage yourself and tell me that doesn't look more like strategic bombing than a targeted missile strike.
Here is the relevant exchange. I find Squeeze not guilty of the indictment. It's quite clear to me that what he is saying is he saw some footage on BBC of bomb strikes and drew the conclusion from that footage that Israel is engaged in terror bombing, not that the BBC used terror bombing in its report.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2023, 11:27:38 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 30, 2023, 02:30:28 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2023, 09:13:43 AMSorry Josq, but your editorial bullshit calling IDF bombings "terror bombings" is entirely based on whatever leftist sewer you get your information from, reddit, bad leftist journalists, dunno. But there is no actual evidence the IDF is engaging in "terror bombing", they release specific claims that every target they strike was believed to have Hamas assets or infrastructure, and they are still broadly speaking, using the "warning" system before hitting such a target that also has civilians in it.
The BBC is a leftist sewer now? :lmfao:
Look at the footage yourself and tell me that doesn't look more like strategic bombing than a targeted missile strike.
Here is the relevant exchange. I find Squeeze not guilty of the indictment. It's quite clear to me that what he is saying is he saw some footage on BBC of bomb strikes and drew the conclusion from that footage that Israel is engaged in terror bombing, not that the BBC used terror bombing in its report.
Maybe. I think he was attempting to use the BBC as an imprimatur of legitimacy for his views.
Whether that is true or not, Jihadi Josq appears to continue to assert Israel is conducting a campaign of terror sans any evidence.
Quote from: Gups on October 31, 2023, 10:00:16 AMOf course (and I said so). I was contesting your assertion that the only people outraged by treatment of the Uigars were conservatives.
One of the key organisations I've had interactions with vis a vis the Uighurs is this Jewish group in the UK.
https://renecassin.org/genocide/
I think if Israel was really conducting terror bombings, the death toll would be at least 10 times what Hamas is saying now (and those figures should be taken with a pinch of salt). As it stands the figure seems to be in line with previous large scale special military operations (aka wars) the IDF have been involved in.
I mean we know what terror bombing looks like, just look at Ukraine. There is no evidence of anything like that here. Russia has literally been using WW2 era munitions in carpet bombing attacks at times.
Quote from: PJL on October 31, 2023, 11:57:13 AMI think if Israel was really conducting terror bombings, the death toll would be at least 10 times what Hamas is saying now (and those figures should be taken with a pinch of salt). As it stands the figure seems to be in line with previous large scale special military operations (aka wars) the IDF have been involved in.
I don't think it can be called terror bombing.
I don't think I know how to describe this.
They sure ain't targeting only Hamas sites though.
Obviously, Hamas is hiding amongst civilians, but Israel is using this justification loosely. And they've admitted they don't make any distinction between a civilian and a Hamas supporter.
On the one hand, Hamas would claim anyone killed is a civilian, even they had a bazooka in their hands. On the other, this government will claim anyone not Israeli in Gaza and the West Bank is a terrorist.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 31, 2023, 11:59:53 AMI mean we know what terror bombing looks like, just look at Ukraine. There is no evidence of anything like that here. Russia has literally been using WW2 era munitions in carpet bombing attacks at times.
Russia has no credibility to defend. China and Iran will not stop aiding Russia if they "discover" they are careless at attacking civilians.
Israel is another matter. They can go far, but not too far.
Hamas main HQ in Gaza is under a hospital. I am not convinced they are just targeting whatever they want, I think you may underestimate the degree to which Hamas has built Gaza's civilian infrastructure as its first line of defense.
That is regrettable, but not the fault of Israel.
It all comes down to the problem of how does a nation respond to a foe that has nothing but contempt for international norms and the law of war and in fact actively exploits those rules for its own political and military advantage? And when that same foe is entirely uninterested in the safety of its population, and indeed views them more valuable as dead martyrs then living mouths to feed?
You can say that Israel has no good choices and that is so but still has to pick the best it can from the bad ones.
Any other nation in the world that sustained a similar attack and the had the military capacity to respond would do no less than Israel is doing now. Any free nation that attempted do otherwise would have its government fall in a matter of seconds.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 31, 2023, 12:28:10 PMIt all comes down to the problem of how does a nation respond to a foe that has nothing but contempt for international norms and the law of war and in fact actively exploits those rules for its own political and military advantage? And when that same foe is entirely uninterested in the safety of its population, and indeed views them more valuable as dead martyrs then living mouths to feed?
You can say that Israel has no good choices and that is so but still has to pick the best it can from the bad ones.
Any other nation in the world that sustained a similar attack and the had the military capacity to respond would do no less than Israel is doing now. Any free nation that attempted do otherwise would have its government fall in a matter of seconds.
Sure if any other nation was just put in Israel's current position right now it would probably have no choice but to act roughly similarly, at least in the short term.
My issue is that the current situation was not just created by a magic spell. It happened over a century and a half of choices made by both sides. I don't think any country would have made the same choices Netanyahu and the other various Israeli governments have made since 1995.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 31, 2023, 12:28:10 PMIt all comes down to the problem of how does a nation respond to a foe that has nothing but contempt for international norms and the law of war and in fact actively exploits those rules for its own political and military advantage? And when that same foe is entirely uninterested in the safety of its population, and indeed views them more valuable as dead martyrs then living mouths to feed?
You can say that Israel has no good choices and that is so but still has to pick the best it can from the bad ones.
Any other nation in the world that sustained a similar attack and the had the military capacity to respond would do no less than Israel is doing now. Any free nation that attempted do otherwise would have its government fall in a matter of seconds.
Exactly and is why we should be giving Israel some slack on this.
Quote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 09:27:16 AMQuote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2023, 08:24:09 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 30, 2023, 07:18:42 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2023, 07:17:26 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 30, 2023, 05:50:31 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2023, 05:45:08 PM1) Was the Hamas attack justified? Yes or No.
2) Does Israel have a right exist? Yes or No.
1) No
2) Do Palestinians have a right to exist?
I have never said the Palestinians have no right to exist or that Palestine has no right to exist.
You said people got displaced all the time and it was no big deal. If that's not a negation of their right to exists, I don't know what it is...
Yeah, so? Germans got displaced, I still think Germans have a right to exist.
They have their own country, afaik. No one is invading Germany and constantly displacing Germans. No one is shooting German civilians and calling them terrorist the moment to retaliate against their armed assailants, conflating them with the scums that attack civilians.
The Germans made peace.
Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2023, 12:41:16 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on October 31, 2023, 12:28:10 PMIt all comes down to the problem of how does a nation respond to a foe that has nothing but contempt for international norms and the law of war and in fact actively exploits those rules for its own political and military advantage? And when that same foe is entirely uninterested in the safety of its population, and indeed views them more valuable as dead martyrs then living mouths to feed?
You can say that Israel has no good choices and that is so but still has to pick the best it can from the bad ones.
Any other nation in the world that sustained a similar attack and the had the military capacity to respond would do no less than Israel is doing now. Any free nation that attempted do otherwise would have its government fall in a matter of seconds.
Sure if any other nation was just put in Israel's current position right now it would probably have no choice but to act roughly similarly, at least in the short term.
My issue is that the current situation was not just created by a magic spell. It happened over a century and a half of choices made by both sides. I don't think any country would have made the same choices Netanyahu and the other various Israeli governments have made since 1995.
What-iffery is a just another form of what-aboutery IMO. We can never know what other actions Israel and others could have taken to change or alter the circumstances it now find itself in - it's all conjecture. All we can ever do is the assess the situation now and proceed from there.
Yeah Germany surrendered and put up with being occupied for decades peacefully. Sometimes your situation sucks and you have to eat a shit sandwich.
Palestine has never surrendered. They still think they can win. If the Germans were sure that eventually the German Reich could still triumph and spent years threatening everybody with violence, things would have gone much differently for them.
I mean the PLA, not Hamas mind you, just recently released a statement reminding its people that the Prophet Muhammed prophesied the extermination of the Jews by the Muslims so just hold on! Victory is coming!
Can you imagine the West German government saying that Hitler said that it was the destiny of Germans to exterminate the Americans, British, and French? So just keep up the fight! We can still win!!!111
So it is hard for me to sit there and agree that the Israelis are the only nutters and assholes when the supposedly moderate government of the Palestinians says stuff like that. Both sides are full of bastards who want blood and believe God is on their side and will deliver them victory if they just be pieces of shit for a long enough time. Now it may not be the majority of either side, but it is a critical mass sufficiently powerful to ensure nothing productive ever happens.
Quote from: PJL on October 31, 2023, 12:54:33 PMWhat-iffery is a just another form of what-aboutery IMO. We can never know what other actions Israel and others could have taken to change or alter the circumstances it now find itself in - it's all conjecture. All we can ever do is the assess the situation now and proceed from there.
It has to do with what both sides have done. It is about trusting them and their intentions.
Unfortunately, neither side can be trusted. Or at least can be trusted, just trusted to basically continue doing the same stuff they always have done.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 31, 2023, 12:28:10 PMIt all comes down to the problem of how does a nation respond to a foe that has nothing but contempt for international norms and the law of war and in fact actively exploits those rules for its own political and military advantage? And when that same foe is entirely uninterested in the safety of its population, and indeed views them more valuable as dead martyrs then living mouths to feed?
You can say that Israel has no good choices and that is so but still has to pick the best it can from the bad ones.
Any other nation in the world that sustained a similar attack and the had the military capacity to respond would do no less than Israel is doing now. Any free nation that attempted do otherwise would have its government fall in a matter of seconds.
Yeah this is what has confused me from UK politicians/commentators and UN calling for ceasefire. Israel is expected to turn the other cheek or outsource security decisions to other polities/organizations?
None of that is reasonable.
I have no idea what the solution to this shit is, but IMHO, doing air strikes to kill a Hamas commander in the middle of a refugee camp is callous, counterproductive pretty terrible all around.
I'm talking about the recent Jabalia refugee camp strike, where the IDF bombed a "Hamas senior commander", resulting in dozens of civilian deaths. The images are absolutely horrific. There has to be a better way to neutralize these guys.
Quote from: garbon on October 31, 2023, 01:02:49 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on October 31, 2023, 12:28:10 PMIt all comes down to the problem of how does a nation respond to a foe that has nothing but contempt for international norms and the law of war and in fact actively exploits those rules for its own political and military advantage? And when that same foe is entirely uninterested in the safety of its population, and indeed views them more valuable as dead martyrs then living mouths to feed?
You can say that Israel has no good choices and that is so but still has to pick the best it can from the bad ones.
Any other nation in the world that sustained a similar attack and the had the military capacity to respond would do no less than Israel is doing now. Any free nation that attempted do otherwise would have its government fall in a matter of seconds.
Yeah this is what has confused me from UK politicians/commentators and UN calling for ceasefire. Israel is expected to turn the other cheek or outsource security decisions to other polities/organizations?
None of that is reasonable.
I think the security decision HAS to be outsourced. I said back in 2006 that some kind of third party had to step in and disarm Hamas and provide security for Gaza and enable a functional government to be able to be established. That was what had to happen in 2006 for Gaza to be successful. Israel is Palestine's enemy. They cannot do it.
But nobody wants to do that. And we know how it would go. Hamas would launch attacks on the security forces and provoke a response and the whole thing would collapse. Because Hamas doesn't want a functional and peaceful Gaza, they want war with Israel. They want the Palestinian people to suffer because it enhances their power and keeps up the pressure on their enemy. And they have lots of support for that position. Now maybe it isn't everybody. Maybe it is not even the majority. But it is enough to ensure Hamas is always in control in Gaza and nobody can or wants to do anything about it.
And so long as Hamas is in charge in Gaza, Israel is fucked. Which, of course, is the idea.
But Israel is not exactly doing themselves any favors. They seen to be enacting policies designed to make the situation as bad as possible, I suspect because they have their own nutjobs who think God will eventually deliver them total victory and the promised land or some shit.
Stars of David were painted on more than a few dozen buildings in the 13th, 14th, 15th and 18th arrondissement in Paris.
Not dissimilar to the sign for Christian that ISIS painted on buildings in Syria and Iraq.
Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2023, 01:24:01 PMI think the security decision HAS to be outsourced. I said back in 2006 that some kind of third party had to step in and disarm Hamas and provide security for Gaza and enable a functional government to be able to be established.
There's no 3rd party interested in having its people be decapited ruling over that bunch until they're ready to properly rule themselves.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 31, 2023, 01:21:51 PMI have no idea what the solution to this shit is, but IMHO, doing air strikes to kill a Hamas commander in the middle of a refugee camp is callous, counterproductive pretty terrible all around.
I'm talking about the recent Jabalia refugee camp strike, where the IDF bombed a "Hamas senior commander", resulting in dozens of civilian deaths. The images are absolutely horrific. There has to be a better way to neutralize these guys.
Got to force Egypt accept the population somehow.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 31, 2023, 01:25:00 PMStars of David were painted on more than a few dozen buildings in the 13th, 14th, 15th and 18th arrondissement in Paris.
Not dissimilar to the sign for Christian that ISIS painted on buildings in Syria and Iraq.
There are also European precedents for marking businesses and homes occupied by Jews.
The horror here is not the novelty but the echo.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 31, 2023, 01:26:25 PMQuote from: Valmy on October 31, 2023, 01:24:01 PMI think the security decision HAS to be outsourced. I said back in 2006 that some kind of third party had to step in and disarm Hamas and provide security for Gaza and enable a functional government to be able to be established.
There's no 3rd party interested in having its people be decapited ruling over that bunch until they're ready to properly rule themselves.
I know. You would have to be crazy to do something like that. Not even Egypt or Jordan wanted to govern Gaza and the West Bank. Can you imagine a few thousand in an international peacekeeping brigade trying to do it?
But it is the only way out. Palestine needs a force to guarantee their security and disarm their nutters. Israel cannot do it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 31, 2023, 01:28:04 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 31, 2023, 01:25:00 PMStars of David were painted on more than a few dozen buildings in the 13th, 14th, 15th and 18th arrondissement in Paris.
Not dissimilar to the sign for Christian that ISIS painted on buildings in Syria and Iraq.
There are also European precedents for marking businesses and homes occupied by Jews.
The horror here is not the novelty but the echo.
sure, but we all know from which corner it's coming now.
Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2023, 01:33:46 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 31, 2023, 01:26:25 PMQuote from: Valmy on October 31, 2023, 01:24:01 PMI think the security decision HAS to be outsourced. I said back in 2006 that some kind of third party had to step in and disarm Hamas and provide security for Gaza and enable a functional government to be able to be established.
There's no 3rd party interested in having its people be decapited ruling over that bunch until they're ready to properly rule themselves.
I know. You would have to be crazy to do something like that. Not even Egypt or Jordan wanted to govern Gaza and the West Bank. Can you imagine a few thousand in an international peacekeeping brigade trying to do it?
But it is the only way out. Palestine needs a force to guarantee their security and disarm their nutters. Israel cannot do it.
Timur might be able to, but he's dead
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 31, 2023, 01:46:00 PMsure, but we all know from which corner it's coming now.
Perhaps in this case and it may even be likely. Although I don't think that's the only source of anti-semitism in Europe. But if we're talking about anti-semitism in Europe I think the resonance and particular pain is because of European history. In the clip of a French Jewish woman crying about this happening to her home, she said "again I find the hatred I saw as a child." I think there needs to be a bit more reckoning.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2023, 12:48:55 PMThe Germans made peace.
The Germans were offered peace.
Quote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 02:44:58 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2023, 12:48:55 PMThe Germans made peace.
The Germans were offered peace.
It was unconditional surrender in WW2 - no peace terms given.
Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2023, 01:33:46 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 31, 2023, 01:26:25 PMQuote from: Valmy on October 31, 2023, 01:24:01 PMI think the security decision HAS to be outsourced. I said back in 2006 that some kind of third party had to step in and disarm Hamas and provide security for Gaza and enable a functional government to be able to be established.
There's no 3rd party interested in having its people be decapited ruling over that bunch until they're ready to properly rule themselves.
I know. You would have to be crazy to do something like that. Not even Egypt or Jordan wanted to govern Gaza and the West Bank. Can you imagine a few thousand in an international peacekeeping brigade trying to do it?
But it is the only way out. Palestine needs a force to guarantee their security and disarm their nutters. Israel cannot do it.
Israel has made sure Gaza can't be governed, and as it is, the WB can't be either.
Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2023, 03:17:41 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 02:44:58 PMQuote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2023, 12:48:55 PMThe Germans made peace.
The Germans were offered peace.
They were dictated peace. There was no offer.
Same difference. German officers sought terms, they were offered unconditional surrender.
Quote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 03:38:17 PMQuote from: Valmy on October 31, 2023, 01:33:46 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 31, 2023, 01:26:25 PMQuote from: Valmy on October 31, 2023, 01:24:01 PMI think the security decision HAS to be outsourced. I said back in 2006 that some kind of third party had to step in and disarm Hamas and provide security for Gaza and enable a functional government to be able to be established.
There's no 3rd party interested in having its people be decapited ruling over that bunch until they're ready to properly rule themselves.
I know. You would have to be crazy to do something like that. Not even Egypt or Jordan wanted to govern Gaza and the West Bank. Can you imagine a few thousand in an international peacekeeping brigade trying to do it?
But it is the only way out. Palestine needs a force to guarantee their security and disarm their nutters. Israel cannot do it.
Israel has made sure Gaza can't be governed, and as it is, the WB can't be either.
Yes I know. As I said, Israel has done much to make the situation as bad as possible.
Quote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 03:45:10 PMSame difference. German officers sought terms, they were offered unconditional surrender.
And the Palestinians have been offered many deals, shitty ones but still deals, they just haven't accepted them.
Still better than unconditional surrender.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/31/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-zack-beauchamp.html
"So I wanted to start with something you wrote, which is that "Two things are true. Israel must do something, and what it's doing now is indefensible." And I want to take them in turn."
The latest podcast from Ezra Klein
I strongly recommend it to those of you who take the view that shit happens in war, and so all the killing in Gaza is regrettable, but understandable.
Dude stop posting podcast links. I'm not listening to some imbecile's hour long podcast to hear the same rehashed arguments you have made. Civilians die in war, there is no meaningful evidence the IDF is systemically violating the laws of war. All the podcast links in the world don't change that, the podcast doesn't have meaningful information we can't get from all the reading we've already done on this.
Quote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 12:05:19 PMThey sure ain't targeting only Hamas sites though.
I would think that Israeli targeting data would be pretty highly classified, so you can understand my skepticism to you claim to know what Israel is targeting and that some targets are not associated with Hamas.
QuoteAnd they've admitted they don't make any distinction between a civilian and a Hamas supporter.
Source?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 31, 2023, 04:50:42 PMDude stop posting podcast links. I'm not listening to some imbecile's hour long podcast to hear the same rehashed arguments you have made. Civilians die in war, there is no meaningful evidence the IDF is systemically violating the laws of war. All the podcast links in the world don't change that, the podcast doesn't have meaningful information we can't get from all the reading we've already done on this.
It wasn't for you. I don't think this level of discussion is for you.
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2023, 04:55:49 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 12:05:19 PMThey sure ain't targeting only Hamas sites though.
I would think that Israeli targeting data would be pretty highly classified, so you can understand my skepticism to you claim to know what Israel is targeting and that some targets are not associated with Hamas.
QuoteAnd they've admitted they don't make any distinction between a civilian and a Hamas supporter.
Source?
Well, they targeted university in The Israeli Authorities justified it as a military target, because they claimed militance were being trained at the University.
It would sure help if people wouldn't just reflexively defend the actions of the Israelis. What they are doing is horrific.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2023, 05:03:06 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 31, 2023, 04:50:42 PMDude stop posting podcast links. I'm not listening to some imbecile's hour long podcast to hear the same rehashed arguments you have made. Civilians die in war, there is no meaningful evidence the IDF is systemically violating the laws of war. All the podcast links in the world don't change that, the podcast doesn't have meaningful information we can't get from all the reading we've already done on this.
It wasn't for you. I don't think this level of discussion is for you.
Correct, someone making childish appeals to authority and random drive-by podcast links with no supporting factual assertions is a tad below my level, but it suits you well.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2023, 04:42:11 PMIsrael must do something
Before I listen, does he say what this something is?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 31, 2023, 05:09:14 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2023, 05:03:06 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 31, 2023, 04:50:42 PMDude stop posting podcast links. I'm not listening to some imbecile's hour long podcast to hear the same rehashed arguments you have made. Civilians die in war, there is no meaningful evidence the IDF is systemically violating the laws of war. All the podcast links in the world don't change that, the podcast doesn't have meaningful information we can't get from all the reading we've already done on this.
It wasn't for you. I don't think this level of discussion is for you.
Correct, someone making childish appeals to authority and random drive-by podcast links with no supporting factual assertions is a tad below my level, but it suits you well.
I don't think it's for anyone. Who the fuck would listen to a long-ass podcast in a forum discussion? "Here, go listen to some dude I claim is the authority for an hour to see why you're wrong"? What's next, telling people who think Japanese surrendered because of atomic bomb to go read some 300-page book?
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2023, 04:55:49 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 12:05:19 PMThey sure ain't targeting only Hamas sites though.
I would think that Israeli targeting data would be pretty highly classified, so you can understand my skepticism to you claim to know what Israel is targeting and that some targets are not associated with Hamas.
Unless Hamas is everywhere in Gaza, it's hard to believe the IDF is only targeting military sites. I mean, it's a possibility. But I doubt it.
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2023, 04:55:49 PMQuoteAnd they've admitted they don't make any distinction between a civilian and a Hamas supporter.
Source?
I've already posted it twice.
Latest one (https://theintercept.com/2023/10/14/hamas-israel-palestinian-authority/)
Israeli President Isaac Herzog said this week that, as far as the military is concerned, there is little difference between Gaza's civilian population and Hamas, which has governed the besieged territory since 2007. "It's not true this rhetoric about civilians [being] not aware, not involved," Herzog said in the middle of an unprecedented Israeli bombing campaign in retaliation for Hamas's massacre of Israeli civilians last week. "They could have risen up, they could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d'etat."
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2023, 05:04:01 PMWell, they targeted university in The Israeli Authorities justified it as a military target, because they claimed militance were being trained at the University.
The Israelis claimed to have targeted it because it served as a training, production, and operations center for Hamas militants.
QuoteIt would sure help if people wouldn't just reflexively defend the actions of the Israelis. What they are doing is horrific.
It would sure help is people wouldn't just reflexively assume that Israelis are stupids who bomb buildings with scarce military resources just to serve as cartoon villains.
Quote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 05:54:54 PMUnless Hamas is everywhere in Gaza
I mean Gaza is pretty tiny.
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2023, 05:55:24 PMIt would sure help is people wouldn't just reflexively assume that Israelis are stupids who bomb buildings with scarce military resources just to serve as cartoon villains.
Well that certainly is the thing. We have people claiming Israel's objectives are genocidal but surely Israel is well aware they could never achieve anything like that even if they wanted to. The rest of the world wouldn't let them. So what exactly is their motivation for mass murder? All they will end up doing is empowering Hamas and weakening themselves. That would be nuts.
But again they have to do something...but what? I don't know. They seem very fucked in this situation.
Quote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 05:54:54 PMUnless Hamas is everywhere in Gaza, it's hard to believe the IDF is only targeting military sites. I mean, it's a possibility. But I doubt it.
Unless Israel is bombing everything in Gaza, it is hard to believe that Israel is simply dropping bombs wherever for whatever reason. It is possible, but I doubt it.
QuoteI've already posted it twice.
Latest one (https://theintercept.com/2023/10/14/hamas-israel-palestinian-authority/)
Israeli President Isaac Herzog said this week that, as far as the military is concerned, there is little difference between Gaza's civilian population and Hamas, which has governed the besieged territory since 2007. "It's not true this rhetoric about civilians [being] not aware, not involved," Herzog said in the middle of an unprecedented Israeli bombing campaign in retaliation for Hamas's massacre of Israeli civilians last week. "They could have risen up, they could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d'etat."
That source does not say that "they [Israelis] don't make any distinction between a civilian and a Hamas supporter," it says that it (the Intercept) believes that the Israeli military sees "little difference." Herzog is not the one saying that. Maybe choose your sources better and then read them more carefully?
Quote from: DGuller on October 31, 2023, 05:49:13 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 31, 2023, 05:09:14 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2023, 05:03:06 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 31, 2023, 04:50:42 PMDude stop posting podcast links. I'm not listening to some imbecile's hour long podcast to hear the same rehashed arguments you have made. Civilians die in war, there is no meaningful evidence the IDF is systemically violating the laws of war. All the podcast links in the world don't change that, the podcast doesn't have meaningful information we can't get from all the reading we've already done on this.
It wasn't for you. I don't think this level of discussion is for you.
Correct, someone making childish appeals to authority and random drive-by podcast links with no supporting factual assertions is a tad below my level, but it suits you well.
I don't think it's for anyone. Who the fuck would listen to a long-ass podcast in a forum discussion? "Here, go listen to some dude I claim is the authority for an hour to see why you're wrong"? What's next, telling people who think Japanese surrendered because of atomic bomb to go read some 300-page book?
I mean what's funny is I'm a NYT subscriber so I actually listen to Ezra's pod sometimes, but I'm not going to listen to a whole podcast episode to find out what point CC thinks he is making.
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2023, 06:03:36 PMHerzog is not the one saying that. Maybe choose your sources better and then read them more carefully?
That would be a little too far removed from "constantly and uncritically bash Israel over everything" for certain people.
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2023, 04:55:49 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 12:05:19 PMThey sure ain't targeting only Hamas sites though.
I would think that Israeli targeting data would be pretty highly classified, so you can understand my skepticism to you claim to know what Israel is targeting and that some targets are not associated with Hamas.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/what-palestinians-really-think-hamas
They're not that classified. They tell Palestinians to evacuate toward a specific area, and then they proceed to bomb said area as well as the rest.
Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2023, 04:03:23 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 03:45:10 PMSame difference. German officers sought terms, they were offered unconditional surrender.
And the Palestinians have been offered many deals, shitty ones but still deals, they just haven't accepted them.
Still better than unconditional surrender.
Germany was left with a country for its people. There were no talks of relocating Germans elsewhere, or splitting the country in zones where there would be British colonies, American colonies, Russian colonies, French colonies, etc where Germans could not live.
If Israel was willing to let Palestinian lives in Israel as citizens of Israel with equal rights, we would not be having this discussion. But that's not something they want, obviously. They want a Jewish State, not another Arab state with a strong Jewish population.
The best deal Palestinian were ever offered was a vague promise that Israel would eventually, maybe give them some parcel of non attached lands and call it a country. Clinton said Arafat was a fool to refuse this. I remain unconvinced of that.
First of all, that proposed state was non viable. Second, there were no guarantee Israel would stop colonization, they never agreed to respect the borders of that new state. They never stop the colonization process before and afterward, except to pull out of Gaza to push further into the less dense West Bank, where the PA was weakened by the Hamas takeover of said Gaza. Third, even with all these conditions met, there's no guarantee Arafat would not have been killed for accepting a non-contiguous state, just as Rabin was killed by his side following the inflammatory remarks of Bibi, among others.
Quote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 06:05:07 PMhttps://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/what-palestinians-really-think-hamas
They're not that classified. They tell Palestinians to evacuate toward a specific area, and then they proceed to bomb said area as well as the rest.
Didn't see any Israeli targeting data in the referenced article. Maybe you can try again with a relevant source this time?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 31, 2023, 04:50:42 PMDude stop posting podcast links. I'm not listening to some imbecile's hour long podcast to hear the same rehashed arguments you have made. Civilians die in war, there is no meaningful evidence the IDF is systemically violating the laws of war. All the podcast links in the world don't change that, the podcast doesn't have meaningful information we can't get from all the reading we've already done on this.
Basically, you don't want to know if the IDF is violating the laws of war.
Quote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 06:05:46 PMIf Israel was willing to let Palestinian lives in Israel as citizens of Israel with equal rights, we would not be having this discussion.
Since about 20% of Israel's population consists of these people you do not believe exist, maybe you
shouldn't be having this conversation.
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2023, 06:07:28 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 06:05:07 PMhttps://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/what-palestinians-really-think-hamas
They're not that classified. They tell Palestinians to evacuate toward a specific area, and then they proceed to bomb said area as well as the rest.
Didn't see any Israeli targeting data in the referenced article. Maybe you can try again with a relevant source this time?
Israeli missiles have already destroyed around five percent of all buildings in Gaza, including in areas where Palestinians sought shelter after heeding Israeli calls to evacuate their homes. Other link (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/israeli-airstrikes-pummel-gaza-including-civilian-refuge-areas-ahead-of-expected-ground-invasion)
DEIR AL-BALAH, Gaza Strip (AP) — Israeli warplanes struck targets across Gaza on Monday, including in areas where Palestinian civilians have been told to seek refuge, after another small aid shipment was allowed into the besieged Hamas-ruled territory. Israeli strike in southern Gaza (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67133803)More than 100 Palestinians have been killed in air strikes in southern Gaza, officials say, as the Israeli military continues to target the area despite ordering civilians to shelter there.Most of the dead reportedly fled their homes in the north ahead of what is expected to be a major ground offensive against the militant group Hamas.The military said it struck a series of Hamas targets in the south.Didn't the IDF told the people of Gaza to evacuate south? Why are they bombing the southern portion of the strip if they told them to evacuate south, then?
As for the warnings, here's a testimony from an ABC crew:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJwqTAV-f_o
Seems the warning are pretty short. It's as if they don't want people to take shelter.
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2023, 06:10:19 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 06:05:46 PMIf Israel was willing to let Palestinian lives in Israel as citizens of Israel with equal rights, we would not be having this discussion.
Since about 20% of Israel's population consists of these people you do not believe exist, maybe you shouldn't be having this conversation.
So you deny that the right of return is a contentious issue in Israel?
Quote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 06:18:29 PMIsraeli missiles have already destroyed around five percent of all buildings in Gaza, including in areas where Palestinians sought shelter after heeding Israeli calls to evacuate their homes.
Other link (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/israeli-airstrikes-pummel-gaza-including-civilian-refuge-areas-ahead-of-expected-ground-invasion)
DEIR AL-BALAH, Gaza Strip (AP) — Israeli warplanes struck targets across Gaza on Monday, including in areas where Palestinian civilians have been told to seek refuge, after another small aid shipment was allowed into the besieged Hamas-ruled territory.
Israeli strike in southern Gaza (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67133803)
More than 100 Palestinians have been killed in air strikes in southern Gaza, officials say, as the Israeli military continues to target the area despite ordering civilians to shelter there.
Most of the dead reportedly fled their homes in the north ahead of what is expected to be a major ground offensive against the militant group Hamas.
The military said it struck a series of Hamas targets in the south.
Didn't the IDF told the people of Gaza to evacuate south? Why are they bombing the southern portion of the strip if they told them to evacuate south, then?
As for the warnings, here's a testimony from an ABC crew:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJwqTAV-f_o
Seems the warning are pretty short. It's as if they don't want people to take shelter.
I'm still not seeing any Israeli targeting data. Is it possible that you do not know what targeting is, in this context?
Nowhere did Israel say that it would not bomb in the southern part of Gaza. That would be moronic. They did say that the Gazans would be safe from the Israeli ground offensive there.
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2023, 06:34:56 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 06:18:29 PMIsraeli missiles have already destroyed around five percent of all buildings in Gaza, including in areas where Palestinians sought shelter after heeding Israeli calls to evacuate their homes.
Other link (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/israeli-airstrikes-pummel-gaza-including-civilian-refuge-areas-ahead-of-expected-ground-invasion)
DEIR AL-BALAH, Gaza Strip (AP) — Israeli warplanes struck targets across Gaza on Monday, including in areas where Palestinian civilians have been told to seek refuge, after another small aid shipment was allowed into the besieged Hamas-ruled territory.
Israeli strike in southern Gaza (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67133803)
More than 100 Palestinians have been killed in air strikes in southern Gaza, officials say, as the Israeli military continues to target the area despite ordering civilians to shelter there.
Most of the dead reportedly fled their homes in the north ahead of what is expected to be a major ground offensive against the militant group Hamas.
The military said it struck a series of Hamas targets in the south.
Didn't the IDF told the people of Gaza to evacuate south? Why are they bombing the southern portion of the strip if they told them to evacuate south, then?
As for the warnings, here's a testimony from an ABC crew:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJwqTAV-f_o
Seems the warning are pretty short. It's as if they don't want people to take shelter.
I'm still not seeing any Israeli targeting data. Is it possible that you do not know what targeting is, in this context?
Nowhere did Israel say that it would not bomb in the southern part of Gaza. That would be moronic. They did say that the Gazans would be safe from the Israeli ground offensive there.
Come on, you know as well as I do that you won't get precise targeting data. You're playing dumb as always.
Israel told Gazans to evacuate to the south 24h prior to its bombing campaign. Then it started bombing in the south. What's the point?
Why is Israel attacking South Gaza after telling people to go there? (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/why-is-israel-attacking-south-gaza-after-telling-people-go-there-2023-10-25/)
It's like they don't care about civilian casualties at all.
So on one side, we have the pro-Israelis who insists they're all fair targets. Every single target so far was a military target because the IDF has said so. Even when they said they don't make a distinction between civilians and Hamas combatants.
On the other, those who raise doubts.
I'm gonna keep my skepticism. Israel want these people out of Gaza and they'll do what they can to get them out of there, willingly or not, alive or not, after they've raze as much as they can so they have nowhere to return.
Quote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 06:05:46 PMGermany was left with a country for its people. There were no talks of relocating Germans elsewhere, or splitting the country in zones where there would be British colonies, American colonies, Russian colonies, French colonies, etc where Germans could not live.
Um the Germans were subjected to one of the largest ethnic cleansings in history.
Both sides have been dehumanizing each other for decades. IMO, it hasn't "taken" into as many Israelis as Palestinians (where it seems to have reached near universal consensus).
The attacks on 07Oct2023 are proof of that dehumanization on a shocking scale. The IDF response is also a proof of that. I really wonder what's their "acceptable civilian casualties" prior to approving a strike.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 31, 2023, 08:27:06 PMBoth sides have been dehumanizing each other for decades. IMO, it hasn't "taken" into as many Israelis as Palestinians (where it seems to have reached near universal consensus).
The attacks on 07Oct2023 are proof of that dehumanization on a shocking scale. The IDF response is also a proof of that. I really wonder what's their "acceptable civilian casualties" prior to approving a strike.
Probably better than Dresden.
Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2023, 08:24:26 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 06:05:46 PMGermany was left with a country for its people. There were no talks of relocating Germans elsewhere, or splitting the country in zones where there would be British colonies, American colonies, Russian colonies, French colonies, etc where Germans could not live.
Um the Germans were subjected to one of the largest ethnic cleansings in history.
Only Russia and in Russian territories. Afaik, not in Germany proper. I'm not aware of mass deportation from Berlin or Lepzig.
It's like telling me the Russians are cleansing Ukraine so it's ok for Israel to cleanse Palestine... C'mon, Russia has never been an example to follow, even in Tsarist times. That's an argument for Raz.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2023, 08:32:15 PMQuote from: Zoupa on October 31, 2023, 08:27:06 PMBoth sides have been dehumanizing each other for decades. IMO, it hasn't "taken" into as many Israelis as Palestinians (where it seems to have reached near universal consensus).
The attacks on 07Oct2023 are proof of that dehumanization on a shocking scale. The IDF response is also a proof of that. I really wonder what's their "acceptable civilian casualties" prior to approving a strike.
Probably better than Dresden.
Good argument. Russia has not reach the level of Dresden either, so it's all good.
Quote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 08:37:08 PMQuote from: Valmy on October 31, 2023, 08:24:26 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 06:05:46 PMGermany was left with a country for its people. There were no talks of relocating Germans elsewhere, or splitting the country in zones where there would be British colonies, American colonies, Russian colonies, French colonies, etc where Germans could not live.
Um the Germans were subjected to one of the largest ethnic cleansings in history.
Only Russia and in Russian territories. Afaik, not in Germany proper. I'm not aware of mass deportation from Berlin or Lepzig.
It's like telling me the Russians are cleansing Ukraine so it's ok for Israel to cleanse Palestine... C'mon, Russia has never been an example to follow, even in Tsarist times. That's an argument for Raz.
:mellow:
Quote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 06:52:59 PMCome on, you know as well as I do that you won't get precise targeting data. You're playing dumb as always.
And yet you claimed that you did know their targeting data because you stated as a fact that "They sure ain't targeting only Hamas sites though." I don't think that you are
playing dumb here.
QuoteIsrael told Gazans to evacuate to the south 24h prior to its bombing campaign. Then it started bombing in the south. What's the point?
Why is Israel attacking South Gaza after telling people to go there? (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/why-is-israel-attacking-south-gaza-after-telling-people-go-there-2023-10-25/)
It's like they don't care about civilian casualties at all.
It seems
to you that "they don't care about civilian casualties at all. Your emotional take doesn't make it fact, it just makes it your emotional take.
QuoteSo on one side, we have the pro-Israelis who insists they're all fair targets. Every single target so far was a military target because the IDF has said so. Even when they said they don't make a distinction between civilians and Hamas combatants.
On the one side, you have those who insist that they
know that the Israelis are attacking targets unconnected to Hamas, and then launch into strawman arguments claiming that others (which actually amount to zero people here) are the ones insisting on things.
And you know goddam well that the Israelis did NOT say that "they don't make a distinction between civilians and Hamas combatants." That statement was made by a hack pretending to be a reporter and deliberately trying to fool people with poor reading skills into believing that it was the Israelis saying it. I've pointed this out before.
QuoteOn the other, those who raise doubts.
I'm gonna keep my skepticism. Israel want these people out of Gaza and they'll do what they can to get them out of there, willingly or not, alive or not, after they've raze as much as they can so they have nowhere to return.
You don't raise doubts and express skepticism. You announce as fact things that are not true and other things that you would not possibly know, and then try to wrap yourself in the flag of "raising doubts." There are still a lot of unknowns here, and the rush to judgement of people like you and Jos don't add signal, just noise.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 31, 2023, 08:27:06 PMBoth sides have been dehumanizing each other for decades. IMO, it hasn't "taken" into as many Israelis as Palestinians (where it seems to have reached near universal consensus).
The attacks on 07Oct2023 are proof of that dehumanization on a shocking scale. The IDF response is also a proof of that. I really wonder what's their "acceptable civilian casualties" prior to approving a strike.
I agree with the premise, and would also like some clarity on their calculus of "acceptable collateral damage." I'd also like to believe that the IDF has good trigger discipline in Gaza, but the mutual dehumanization makes me concerned that IDF discipline might not be what it should be.
Quote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 08:37:08 PMQuote from: Valmy on October 31, 2023, 08:24:26 PMUm the Germans were subjected to one of the largest ethnic cleansings in history.
Only Russia and in Russian territories. Afaik, not in Germany proper. I'm not aware of mass deportation from Berlin or Lepzig.
:huh: Tel me that you are joking.
He did say he was not aware, what else do you want from him? I mean, other than the accurate and complete knowledge of history?
No one was ever deported from Kaliningrad, an ancient Russian city founded in the Middle Ages far from the then non-existent Russia but inexplicably named after a 20th century Bolsehvik in one the first known examples of time travel. Ignore all other claims and explanations, especially from the philosopher in the corner, he is real pissant.
Quote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 08:37:08 PMQuote from: Valmy on October 31, 2023, 08:24:26 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 06:05:46 PMGermany was left with a country for its people. There were no talks of relocating Germans elsewhere, or splitting the country in zones where there would be British colonies, American colonies, Russian colonies, French colonies, etc where Germans could not live.
Um the Germans were subjected to one of the largest ethnic cleansings in history.
Only Russia and in Russian territories. Afaik, not in Germany proper. I'm not aware of mass deportation from Berlin or Lepzig.
It's like telling me the Russians are cleansing Ukraine so it's ok for Israel to cleanse Palestine... C'mon, Russia has never been an example to follow, even in Tsarist times. That's an argument for Raz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944%E2%80%931950)
Dude. Three millions expelled from Czechoslovakia alone.
Quote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 06:08:22 PMBasically, you don't want to know if the IDF is violating the laws of war.
The podcast doesn't address that subject; it's a conversation with a Vox correspondent.
His comments are more to the "morality of war" which is different question:
QuoteSo I think there's one really obviously indefensible component, which is the cut-off of electricity, fuel and water supplies to Gaza. This amounts to collective punishment of civilians. I mean, there's really no definition of the morality of war under which one can say you can do that to people . . .
Sieges are permissible military tactic according to a lot of ethicists when it's really just an enemy enclave. Ultimately if there's only fighters there, it's not very different to blow them up than to starve them out in moral terms. But when civilians are there, it's a whole different ballgame.
The reference to "collective punishment" while using a phrase that has meaning in a law of war context is - as in the last article - not being used to make an argument or draw a conclusion about a violation of the law of war but as a rhetorical device to signal moral disapproval. That is confirmed by the later passage on sieges.
Sieges are addressed by international law sources, but the Vox guy isn't analyzing it from that perspective, but from that of "ethicisits". His distinction between "permissible" sieges of "enclaves" and the "different ballgame" of areas where civilians live may be coherent philosophically but doesn't make much sense in a real military context or the real law of war. Most opponents do not cooperate by conveniently concentrating military forces into vulnerable and easily besieged enclaves; it is quite common on the defense to use urban areas as blocking positions to detain and attrite attackers. If war had to grind to a halt whenever an inhabited settlement was reached, that would give rise to pretty obvious exploits. Indeed, that is just what Hamas is trying to exploit now.
If the Beauchamp rule were in effect, the Nazis would still be holding out in Berlin and Japanese imperial troops in Okinawa. The Soviet offensive is perhaps not the best example, as there were indeed serious violations of the law of war. But on Okinawa up to a third or more of prewar civilian population of 300,000 died. The US force naturally blockaded food, water, or other supplies. Under the Beauchamp rule, this was collective punishment and Nimitz and Buckner were war criminals. I find that absurd.
Quote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 03:38:17 PMIsrael has made sure Gaza can't be governed, and as it is, the WB can't be either.
Gaza is and has been governed.
I think a lot of thinking is coloured by selective news reporting. With regards to the bombing in the refugee camp there are two possible headlines.
"IDF bombs refugees claiming to target Hamas leadership"
"Hamas endangers refugees by setting up military command post in refugee camp"
I'm no news paper man so the headlines can of course be snappied up a bit, but the point comes across. I never, or almost never, see the second headline even if that is the relevant one.
Sheilbhs discussion on the Metropolitan Police's recent efforts to explain why they are doing the things they are doing got me thinking. Perhaps they already do this, but IDF should publicize information on their targets, perhaps pay some osints or something so that no classified data leaks. I'm sure there are ways.
So for example Hamas setting upp their command center in and under a hospital makes that hospital a legal target. If I understand correctly the IDF has said that some hospitals should be evacuated. They should also, and perhaps they already do, explain why and also show data supporting that why.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 31, 2023, 11:33:59 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2023, 11:27:38 AMQuote from: Josquius on October 30, 2023, 02:30:28 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 30, 2023, 09:13:43 AMSorry Josq, but your editorial bullshit calling IDF bombings "terror bombings" is entirely based on whatever leftist sewer you get your information from, reddit, bad leftist journalists, dunno. But there is no actual evidence the IDF is engaging in "terror bombing", they release specific claims that every target they strike was believed to have Hamas assets or infrastructure, and they are still broadly speaking, using the "warning" system before hitting such a target that also has civilians in it.
The BBC is a leftist sewer now? :lmfao:
Look at the footage yourself and tell me that doesn't look more like strategic bombing than a targeted missile strike.
Here is the relevant exchange. I find Squeeze not guilty of the indictment. It's quite clear to me that what he is saying is he saw some footage on BBC of bomb strikes and drew the conclusion from that footage that Israel is engaged in terror bombing, not that the BBC used terror bombing in its report.
Maybe. I think he was attempting to use the BBC as an imprimatur of legitimacy for his views.
As I suspect you're well aware given you chose the attack line you did, I was actually just being my straight up honest self, I'm not actively seeking out footage of this conflict and all the footage I'm seeing is what pops up on BBC News.
Though there was of course a slight hint of "Yeah, the only reason anyone could come to this conclusion is fringe nuts brainwashing them, couldn't possibly be from watching a super mainstream conservative source could it. Part funny part just sad that he would think so. The truth will slap him in the face.".
QuoteWhether that is true or not, Jihadi Josq appears to continue to assert Israel is conducting a campaign of terror sans any evidence.
Except. You know. Mainstream news sources and non-profits operating in the region (plus of course Palestinian authorities themselves, but understandable you'd totally disregard anything they say). The amount of civilian casualties are huge and things are a near tipping point of being far more dire.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2023, 10:58:07 AMGreat. So Hiroshima has an irreducible essence, who's meaning does not change depending on whether you like them or not.
Now you are proposing an irreducible essence of terror bombing. That's great too. Have the details you mentioned to support your use of terror bombing been entered into evidence, or are you assuming they are true? How do you know the civilian areas which are being flattened have no military value?
The burden of proof rests on the one bombing what pretty clearly looks to be civilian streets.
If Israel can prove there was military value to those blocks of flats that was so huge as to make destroying a few dozen families worthwhile then lets see it.
QuoteWhich facts did you assess to come to the conclusion that what Israel is doing is not self defense?
Civilian residential areas even in a hostile country are no threat to Israel.
QuoteI think the correct response to a bunch of innocent children being murdered is to kill the people who did it, and if it is impossible to do that without killing innocents because of factors outside your control, then I am willing to accept some level of civilian casualties.
I find it hard to believe with all of Israel's capabilities that levelling neighbourhoods full of innocent civilians is the only method they have to kill terrorists.
How they're acting is so bad the US drone assassination campaign with all of its mis-identifications and collateral damage actually looks good.
QuoteThe part about being right because everyone says you're wrong frankly sounds bonkers. Like Unabomber thinking.
Its not the disagreement which reaffirms my position. Its the manner of the disagreement.
Not "Terror bombing is over the top language" or anything like that. Its "Don't you dare say anything bad about Israel you Islamic extremist you!"
Quote from: Josquius on November 01, 2023, 04:08:06 AMExcept. You know. Mainstream news sources and non-profits operating in the region (plus of course Palestinian authorities themselves, but understandable you'd totally disregard anything they say). The amount of civilian casualties are huge and things are a near tipping point of being far more dire.
I put my neck on the line to get you off the hook and this is what I get. :(
This line exactly fits what DGuller and Otto were saying: you are claiming mainstream news sources are calling the strikes "terror bombing."
QuoteThe burden of proof rests on the one bombing what pretty clearly looks to be civilian streets.
If Israel can prove there was military value to those blocks of flats that was so huge as to make destroying a few dozen families worthwhile then lets see it.
I disagree. There is no burden of proof either way. No one has demonstrated conclusively that at least one Israeli bomb has landed on a target that is 100% devoid of military value, but that doesn't mean I'm free to assert that every single bomb is landing on a high value military target. The only reasonable conclusions to reach right now have to be highly qualified, acknowledge the uncertainty, and subject to revision. You calling it terror bombing is none of those things. You are expressing certainty.
QuoteI find it hard to believe with all of Israel's capabilities that levelling neighbourhoods full of innocent civilians is the only method they have to kill terrorists.
How they're acting is so bad the US drone assassination campaign with all of its mis-identifications and collateral damage actually looks good.
How should they be doing it? What military capabilities do they have that would still kill terrorists but leave the civilians alone?
QuoteIts not the disagreement which reaffirms my position. Its the manner of the disagreement.
Not "Terror bombing is over the top language" or anything like that. Its "Don't you dare say anything bad about Israel you Islamic extremist you!"
How can you possibly defend yourself by making up a quote and putting it in quotation marks? Dude. I've been reading this thread. That line is a fabrication.
Assuming the translation is legit, here is Hamas policy explained by Hamas on a TV interview: https://twitter.com/i/status/1719665420955770937
Let's have another massive protest and if we can then implode the Labour party to make sure these guys get their cease fire to regroup and reinforce!
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2023, 09:42:39 PMAnd yet you claimed that you did know their targeting data because you stated as a fact that "They sure ain't targeting only Hamas sites though." I don't think that you are playing dumb here.
You are playing dumb, and acting in bad faith, as usual.
Israel's intent is to wipe out a good portion of the Gaza strip, clear out the Palestinians and reoccupy it.
Future will tell. It's what they did with the West Bank, I told you 20 years ago and I was right.
QuoteIt seems to you that "they don't care about civilian casualties at all. Your emotional take doesn't make it fact, it just makes it your emotional take.
I care about facts. I care about what I see.
QuoteAnd you know goddam well that the Israelis did NOT say that "they don't make a distinction between civilians and Hamas combatants." That statement was made by a hack pretending to be a reporter and deliberately trying to fool people with poor reading skills into believing that it was the Israelis saying it. I've pointed this out before.
That statement was made by Herzog. No one has bothered contradicting him. No one denied it wasn't true. We're not saying it's some schmuck, it's the President of Israel. Despite not having any real military authority, it's a high level position in the government. Did Netanyahu come out and say it wasn't so? Did the defense minister come out and say it wasn't true?
QuoteYou don't raise doubts and express skepticism. You announce as fact things that are not true and other things that you would not possibly know, and then try to wrap yourself in the flag of "raising doubts." There are still a lot of unknowns here, and the rush to judgement of people like you and Jos don't add signal, just noise.
[/quote]
We know that facts: Close to 10 000 deads, 5% of the buildings destroyeds. You insist on saying these were all military targets. You are playing dumb.
QuoteWe know that facts: Close to 10 000 deads, 5% of the buildings destroyeds.
I guess this is where there would be no point in me joining the debate with you. Nothing Hamas says I can treat as fact.
Yeah "We're a nation of martyrs and we are proud to sacrifice martyrs".
It's quite clear what their strategy is, ensure maximum global exposure of dead Palestinians to paint Israel bad, to do that they ensure maximum number of dead Palestinians. The leadership hides in Qatar, there are thousands and thousands of possible fighters in Gaza so any deaths can be replaced and any civilian death is a bonus to them. The global public forces the global politicians to try and force Israel to back down. It works much better outside the west and since the UN is run by non-westerners they got the UN in their pocket. That way their actions have very little consequences and they can try again and again. If Israel perseveres without external political support they might become pariah eventually and that's a win.
As I pointed out earlier, only the Israeli side is actually trying to keep civilian deaths down, the Gazans are trying to maximize them to ensure external political support. It's like a cheat code and like clockwork the useful idiots go around and play into Hamas's hands.
The government of Gaza is a plague that needs to be erased, almost no matter the cost, otherwise these events will just go on repeat until the Gazans manage to eradicate the Israelis or themselves.
For Israel they don't have the option of backing down now. They are never ever going to have more external support than now, they have a valid casus belli and the possibility of taking back control of Gaza. If they back down now the war will never end and Hamas will presumably eventually take control of the West Bank also due to their increased legitimacy.
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2023, 09:49:59 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 08:37:08 PMQuote from: Valmy on October 31, 2023, 08:24:26 PMUm the Germans were subjected to one of the largest ethnic cleansings in history.
Only Russia and in Russian territories. Afaik, not in Germany proper. I'm not aware of mass deportation from Berlin or Lepzig.
:huh: Tel me that you are joking.
I'm aware of many ethnic Germans killed and deported from Eastern Europe by the Russians, but I'm not aware of any ethnic Germans deported from Canada and the US toward Europe to create colonies of pure English settlers.
I'm not aware of Germans neighbourhoods in Munich being razed to the ground in the middle of the night to make room for new French or British quarters, no.
Care to enlighten me?
Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2023, 11:06:34 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 08:37:08 PMQuote from: Valmy on October 31, 2023, 08:24:26 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 06:05:46 PMGermany was left with a country for its people. There were no talks of relocating Germans elsewhere, or splitting the country in zones where there would be British colonies, American colonies, Russian colonies, French colonies, etc where Germans could not live.
Um the Germans were subjected to one of the largest ethnic cleansings in history.
Only Russia and in Russian territories. Afaik, not in Germany proper. I'm not aware of mass deportation from Berlin or Lepzig.
It's like telling me the Russians are cleansing Ukraine so it's ok for Israel to cleanse Palestine... C'mon, Russia has never been an example to follow, even in Tsarist times. That's an argument for Raz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944%E2%80%931950)
Dude. Three millions expelled from Czechoslovakia alone.
That's not Germany.
Königsberg at the very least was core German territory...
Weirdly it seems that every forum member trying to argue against Israel (although they wouldn't phrase it like that) just makes shit up. Weird that they all seem to not know their facts from their delusions.
Edit: They also seem to obsess over some singular thing that supports them. CC with that weirdly knowledgeable Canadian politician and Viper with a Herzog quote.
Edit2: Would be interesting to do a comparable quiz on the history of the conflict to compare and contrast knowledge and see if there really is a knowledge gulf or if all the made up shit is some other psychological thingy.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 31, 2023, 11:07:36 PMThe podcast doesn't address that subject; it's a conversation with a Vox correspondent.
His comments are more to the "morality of war" which is different question:
QuoteSo I think there's one really obviously indefensible component, which is the cut-off of electricity, fuel and water supplies to Gaza. This amounts to collective punishment of civilians. I mean, there's really no definition of the morality of war under which one can say you can do that to people . . .
Sieges are permissible military tactic according to a lot of ethicists when it's really just an enemy enclave. Ultimately if there's only fighters there, it's not very different to blow them up than to starve them out in moral terms. But when civilians are there, it's a whole different ballgame.
The reference to "collective punishment" while using a phrase that has meaning in a law of war context is - as in the last article - not being used to make an argument or draw a conclusion about a violation of the law of war but as a rhetorical device to signal moral disapproval. That is confirmed by the later passage on sieges.
Sieges are addressed by international law sources, but the Vox guy isn't analyzing it from that perspective, but from that of "ethicisits". His distinction between "permissible" sieges of "enclaves" and the "different ballgame" of areas where civilians live may be coherent philosophically but doesn't make much sense in a real military context or the real law of war. Most opponents do not cooperate by conveniently concentrating military forces into vulnerable and easily besieged enclaves; it is quite common on the defense to use urban areas as blocking positions to detain and attrite attackers. If war had to grind to a halt whenever an inhabited settlement was reached, that would give rise to pretty obvious exploits. Indeed, that is just what Hamas is trying to exploit now.
If the Beauchamp rule were in effect, the Nazis would still be holding out in Berlin and Japanese imperial troops in Okinawa. The Soviet offensive is perhaps not the best example, as there were indeed serious violations of the law of war. But on Okinawa up to a third or more of prewar civilian population of 300,000 died. The US force naturally blockaded food, water, or other supplies. Under the Beauchamp rule, this was collective punishment and Nimitz and Buckner were war criminals. I find that absurd.
I've quoted Herzog before.
Verbatim. He does not recognize such a thing as a Palestinian civilian because they never rebelled against Hamas, apparently. Which is rich, since Israel never helped them rebel against Hamas.
You have another link here:
https://thewire.in/world/northern-gaza-israel-palestine-conflict
Another less detailed answer here:
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/israeli-president-enraged-by-questions-on-civilian-deaths-in-gaza-at-press-conference/3017253
It's clear the high level Israeli leadership does not recognize the definition of Palestinian civilian in Gaza. They are all enemy combatants, supporters of Hamas. Despite the fact many of them were opposed to Hamas before the latest war.
Should the Palestinians consider all Israeli supporters of the Likud? Civilians, armed or not? We know the answer to that. Any moron who suggest that is a terrorist. Yet, this is what the Israeli leadership is suggesting about Palestinians: there are no innocents, they are all fair targets.
And when the dust settles, the population will have been reduced to a manageable level and the rest will be relocated elsewhere, wherever that might be.
They did it over 20 years for the West Bank, they'll do it in 2 for Gaza. And no one will care.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2023, 02:03:11 AMQuote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 03:38:17 PMIsrael has made sure Gaza can't be governed, and as it is, the WB can't be either.
Gaza is and has been governed.
By Hamas. Israel knows full well it's not a government.
The PA might have done something else than weaponize the strip, but the Israeli government of the last few years did not want that. They let the Hamas succeed while they could really well have helped the Palestinians overthrew it when they rebelled, or during the civil war.
Quote from: Threviel on November 01, 2023, 07:32:44 AMKönigsberg at the very least was core German territory...
Weirdly it seems that every forum member trying to argue against Israel (although they wouldn't phrase it like that) just makes shit up. Weird that they all seem to not know their facts from their delusions.
I'll agree for Königsberg.
The rest were a mix of ethnic Germans from the 19th century and recent arrivals since WWII that were deported by the Russians, some in Siberia before the war, some in Germany after the war.
Given the events of WWII, I can't really see peace without population transfers. Even if they had nothing to do with what happened, I can't see the survivors looking kindly at the Germans living in Czechoslovakia or Poland. And I maintain my position that as far as I know, no British, French, Canadian or American colonies were built in Munich or Berlin, destroying German neighbourhoods to make room for Allies settlements while the ethnic Germans were moved to temporary refugee camps
If you want a better comparison, what Israel is doing is the same as Canada and the US were doing to Natives in the 19th century. Signing a treaty, pushing them into a reservation, breaking the treaty, killing them, pushing them further into a reservation, calling them savages when they rebelled after starving, then pushing them further until they had nowhere else to go, crushed between two mass of people.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 31, 2023, 10:45:58 PMNo one was ever deported from Kaliningrad, an ancient Russian city founded in the Middle Ages far from the then non-existent Russia but inexplicably named after a 20th century Bolsehvik in one the first known examples of time travel. Ignore all other claims and explanations, especially from the philosopher in the corner, he is real pissant.
The Russians did it, it's ok to do it. Raz' argument for you too?
Quote from: viper37 on November 01, 2023, 07:49:50 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2023, 02:03:11 AMQuote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 03:38:17 PMIsrael has made sure Gaza can't be governed, and as it is, the WB can't be either.
Gaza is and has been governed.
By Hamas. Israel knows full well it's not a government.
So you have to be non-incompetent and non-evil to be called a government or what? They won an election for crying out loud.
I notice a recurring theme of the anti-Israelis, and not just on Languish but everywhere really, of willful ignorance about specific details of the conflict and etc. This is because the "anti-imperialist" anti-Israel position is largely based on "feels" and not facts. The facts come later, and if they need to be 'invented' to match the feels, then so be it.
Quote from: Tamas on November 01, 2023, 08:21:45 AMQuote from: viper37 on November 01, 2023, 07:49:50 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2023, 02:03:11 AMQuote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 03:38:17 PMIsrael has made sure Gaza can't be governed, and as it is, the WB can't be either.
Gaza is and has been governed.
By Hamas. Israel knows full well it's not a government.
So you have to be non-incompetent and non-evil to be called a government or what? They won an election for crying out loud.
by that standard many of the african countries don't have governments...
Hamas is the government of Gaza, it isn't meaningfully debated. They run ministries, they maintain the basic functions of governance. The election bit is overstated--they did win an election, under the rules of the PA, not as an independent country. They immediately went to war with the PA and basically stopped obeying any of the PA's constitutional rules, and have never held elections again.
They are a government, but they are not a democratic one, and don't have democratic legitimacy. But many governments don't have democratic legitimacy.
Quote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 06:19:47 PMQuote from: grumbler on October 31, 2023, 06:10:19 PMQuote from: viper37 on October 31, 2023, 06:05:46 PMIf Israel was willing to let Palestinian lives in Israel as citizens of Israel with equal rights, we would not be having this discussion.
Since about 20% of Israel's population consists of these people you do not believe exist, maybe you shouldn't be having this conversation.
So you deny that the right of return is a contentious issue in Israel?
That's the most obvious and absurd strawman so far. I note that you seem to no longer deny that Israel is "willing to let Palestinian lives in Israel as citizens of Israel with equal rights," which was the statement in contention. I will accept your concession on this issue and ignore the strawman fallacy.
Quote from: viper37 on November 01, 2023, 07:18:57 AMYou are playing dumb, and acting in bad faith, as usual.
This is the
ad hominem concession. I accept it and consider our discussion closed.
Quote from: viper37 on November 01, 2023, 07:24:25 AMI'm aware of many ethnic Germans killed and deported from Eastern Europe by the Russians, but I'm not aware of any ethnic Germans deported from Canada and the US toward Europe to create colonies of pure English settlers.
I'm not aware of Germans neighbourhoods in Munich being razed to the ground in the middle of the night to make room for new French or British quarters, no.
Care to enlighten me?
Talk about a
non sequitur! :lmfao:
Your claim was that deportations of Germans occurred "Only Russia and in Russian territories. Afaik, not in Germany proper." Simply looking at a map of Germany prewar and Germany postwar would show you that the borders of Germany were redrawn to cut down on its size, and a basic understanding of the history of the period would clue you in the no Germans were allowed to remain in the portions of Germany carved out and given to Poland. That's ethnic cleansing, taking place in Germany.
If you ask Russia, all lands in Europe are Russian, so from that POV it's correct to say that Germans were cleansed from the Russian lands.
I'm not sure what it is about Herzog that makes people so eager to outright lie about what he says and then ignore what he clearly did say.
Quote...a reporter asked Herzog to clarify whether he meant to say that since Gazans did not remove Hamas from power "that makes them, by implication, legitimate targets," Herzog said, "No, I didn't say that."
The Wire (https://thewire.in/world/northern-gaza-israel-palestine-conflict)
I guess that the anti-Israel types lack the evidence to support their wild claims and so lie about the evidence that exists because they have no choice.
Not to mention that to use a quote from one guy in a purely ceremonial position and then use that to argue that the entire "high level Israeli leadership" does not recognize any distinction between civilian and combatant is highly disingenuous.
Quote from: viper37 on November 01, 2023, 07:52:26 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on October 31, 2023, 10:45:58 PMNo one was ever deported from Kaliningrad, an ancient Russian city founded in the Middle Ages far from the then non-existent Russia but inexplicably named after a 20th century Bolsehvik in one the first known examples of time travel. Ignore all other claims and explanations, especially from the philosopher in the corner, he is real pissant.
The Russians did it, it's ok to do it. Raz' argument for you too?
Point badly missed.
As for the issue you raise, I addressed in directly in reponse to CC's last Ezra Klein podcast post. See above.
(https://i.imgur.com/hrcbnq3.gif)
About 12 million Germans were forced from their homes during or shortly after WW2. This includes Germans who were forced from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia and Romania. These German communities had existed for hundreds of years.
My point was to compare it to the 700,000 Arabs that fled during the 1948 war, not the current West Bank.
The 700,000 Arabs who fled and who could have gone to any number of other places with large majority Arab populations.
The jews going the other direction presumably left room enough...
Quote from: Threviel on November 01, 2023, 11:13:52 AMThe jews going the other direction presumably left room enough...
The tons of Jews forced from their homes across West Asia and North Africa as a result of the creation of Israel seems like it should be a bigger deal than it seems to be treated. Especially when Israelis frequently get characterized as settlers like American pioneers settling the West or something. Something like half of all Israelis were already happily living in places across the region and were forced to leave. It is a weird thing where in reaction to Israel being created its enemies seemed to work to force as many Jews as possible to have to move there. I guess just to make the situation as bad as possible for all involved.
But likewise at least those Jews weren't forced into refugee camps for decades on end like the Palestinians have in places like Jordan so the fact that they are refugees tends to be forgotten as they have integrated into the rest of Israeli society (and those who could flee to places like France and the US).
Part of why they have been forgotten is they didn't establish terrorist groups in Israel that perpetuated 70 years of terror against civilians in Egypt, Jordan et al. The Palestinians have done that, essentially their situation is very analogous to the 12-13 million Germans who lost their ancestral homes. They lost a war, the Germans accepted the loss and decided to focus on building a good country.
The Palestinians never did, and decided to focus on living in abject misery forever instead of ever accept that a Jewish state can exist.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/01/protesters-release-rodents-painted-colours-of-palestinian-flag-in-birmingham-mcdonalds
The link summarises itself :wacko:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 01, 2023, 11:42:44 AMThe Palestinians never did, and decided to focus on living in abject misery forever instead of ever accept that a Jewish state can exist.
Well the Germans had some decent options - the socialist paradise of East Germany or the corrupt lackey oligarchy of West Germany. (Or was it the other way around? - I forget)
Seriously, the Palestinian refugees didn't have great options - most became Jordanians by default in 48, but no matter where they went in the Arab world, the regimes were more interested keeping them at arms length in refugee camps for political reasons then making real efforts to integrate the population.
The Palestinians have definitely gotten the short end of the stick for much of last 100 years but ascribing all responsibility for their plight to the evil colonialist Jews is a BS narrative.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 01, 2023, 12:25:25 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 01, 2023, 11:42:44 AMThe Palestinians never did, and decided to focus on living in abject misery forever instead of ever accept that a Jewish state can exist.
Well the Germans had some decent options - the socialist paradise of East Germany or the corrupt lackey oligarchy of West Germany. (Or was it the other way around? - I forget)
Seriously, the Palestinian refugees didn't have great options - most became Jordanians by default in 48, but no matter where they went in the Arab world, the regimes were more interested keeping them at arms length in refugee camps for political reasons then making real efforts to integrate the population.
The Palestinians have definitely gotten the short end of the stick for much of last 100 years but ascribing all responsibility for their plight to the evil colonialist Jews is a BS narrative.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from 1950-1967 the Palestinians living on the West Bank were considered full Jordanian citizens and Jordan had both de facto control over the west bank, but also claimed to have annexed it?
(the same does not appear to have been the case vis-a-vis Gaza and Egypt however)
6 day war changed all that and Jordan has since given up any claims on the West Bank so you can never go back to that situation...
I am not sure actually. I just know there are still refugee camps with Palestinians in Jordan.
Quote from: Barrister on November 01, 2023, 12:38:58 PM6 day war changed all that and Jordan has since given up any claims on the West Bank so you can never go back to that situation...
Right the current situation started when Israel considered withdrawing and handing territory back to Jordan and the Jordanians said "no thanks". And after Black September there was no going back.
Jordan is probably the one Arab country where I do have sympathy for regarding the whole Palestinian situation, given their history with them. They've played a poor hand well, especially since 1970. No mean feat when you have Israel to the west, Iraq to the east, Syria to the north and Saudi Arabia to the south.
Quote from: PJL on November 01, 2023, 01:42:08 PMJordan is probably the one Arab country where I do have sympathy for regarding the whole Palestinian situation, given their history with them. They've played a poor hand well, especially since 1970. No mean feat when you have Israel to the west, Iraq to the east, Syria to the north and Saudi Arabia to the south.
Shows the value of a Georgetown University education. :ccr
I would make the argument that the current situation started when Israel refused, contrary to international humanitarian law, the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and UN General Assembly Resolution 194, refused to allow the vast majority of Palestinian refugees (many of them driven out by the IDF) to return to their homes for a host of specious reasons, including the reason that the Israeli position was that the Arab states should absorb the refugees, not Israel.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2023, 01:49:49 PMQuote from: PJL on November 01, 2023, 01:42:08 PMJordan is probably the one Arab country where I do have sympathy for regarding the whole Palestinian situation, given their history with them. They've played a poor hand well, especially since 1970. No mean feat when you have Israel to the west, Iraq to the east, Syria to the north and Saudi Arabia to the south.
Shows the value of a Georgetown University education. :ccr
I don't get the reference?
Quote from: PJL on November 01, 2023, 02:00:27 PMI don't get the reference?
The current king got a degree there.
It's a stretch, I know.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2023, 02:05:56 PMQuote from: PJL on November 01, 2023, 02:00:27 PMI don't get the reference?
The current king got a degree there.
It's a stretch, I know.
Ah, I thought it was in reference to his father, King Hussein. Talking of which, been reading his Wiki page, and although I was vaguely aware of Jordan's precarious situation, I had no idea how bad-ass he was. Manage to survive despite enemies from within Jordan and from all 4 neighbouring countries at various points, had more assassination attempts than most (like once a year for the first 20 years at least). Up there with Tito IMO.
Lion of Jordan by Avi Shlaim about him is excellent. Really interesting and Hussein is a fascinating figure.
I think Tito is a great comparison.
Quote from: grumbler on November 01, 2023, 09:41:18 AMI'm not sure what it is about Herzog that makes people so eager to outright lie about what he says and then ignore what he clearly did say.
Quote...a reporter asked Herzog to clarify whether he meant to say that since Gazans did not remove Hamas from power "that makes them, by implication, legitimate targets," Herzog said, "No, I didn't say that."
The Wire (https://thewire.in/world/northern-gaza-israel-palestine-conflict)
I guess that the anti-Israel types lack the evidence to support their wild claims and so lie about the evidence that exists because they have no choice.
"It is not true this rhetoric about civilians not being aware, not involved. It's absolutely not true. They could have risen up. They could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d'etat."International law is clear that belligerents who fail to distinguish between combatants and civilians are guilty of war crimes.The report says that when a reporter asked Herzog to clarify whether he meant to say that since Gazans did not remove Hamas from power "that makes them, by implication, legitimate targets," Herzog said, "No, I didn't say that."However, he followed up with a telling question: "When you have a missile in your goddamn kitchen and you want to shoot it at me, am I allowed to defend myself?"I think it's pretty clear what he means.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 01, 2023, 09:54:10 AMNot to mention that to use a quote from one guy in a purely ceremonial position and then use that to argue that the entire "high level Israeli leadership" does not recognize any distinction between civilian and combatant is highly disingenuous.
A purely ceremonial position like the Queen of England. If the Queen had declared that all Irish were legitimate targets during the troubles with the IRA and no one in the British government contradicted the statement, what should people believe?
Come on. Let's be honest here. We know a lot of people in this government are clamoring for Palestinians death and expulsion. You've said yourself many times Israel had lost its moral compass. But now suddenly, after an horrible attack, we're supposed to believe these same people are exercising extreme restraint? Let's be serious here.
You know as well as I do the goal here is to clear the territory of Palestinians to make them someone else's problem. Kill enough to scare 'em into leaving. Hamas is just a pretext.
Hamas is a mortal enemy. Why leave the frontier undefended? Why let Quataris enter with suitcase full of cash? Why constantly weaken the one credible enemy of Hamas? Netanyahu has underestimated the threat Hamas posed and it blew in its face, costing the lives of 1400 people left to fend for themselves, dying in horrible ways. And those who pay for his mistakes are Palestinian civilians and a few hundred Hamas fighters, at most. Israel so far has reported how many Hamas commanders death? 2? 3 ? 5? For how many thousand civilians?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, has vowed to "destroy" the Gaza-based militant group Hamas, which is considered a terrorist group by the US, the EU, Germany and other countries, after it orchestrated a terrorist attack against Israeli civilians last weekend.
"I emphasise that this is only the beginning," he said in a rare statement televised on Friday.As Israeli airstrikes hit Gaza on Friday, Palestinians fled south in cars, trucks and donkey carts on the main road leading out of Gaza City.At the same time, Israeli airstrikes on evacuating vehicles killed at least 70 people, the Hamas press office said, according to the Associated Press.Bombing evacuating trucks because...? There were Hamas fighters shooting rockets in there? C'mon. The lie is big here. Don't tell you believe all that crap.
It's strange that sometimes the IDF seems to know exactly where Hamas is, and some other times, they need to bomb everywhere there are civilians. It's as if, the objective was different than what they're telling the medias. But how could it be? I wonder if... Maybe, just maybe, we should revisit their past declarations?
Viper, how would you deal with Hamas in Gaza today. Not 10-20 years ago, today. What would you do right now if you were in the Israelis shoes?
There's a smarter way to eliminate Hamas (https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/opinion-there-s-a-smarter-way-to-eliminate-hamas/ar-AA1jcs8m?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=f0f6d203376a4dbdaddcecabc9c4a74c&ei=32)
Israel's strategy for defeating Hamas — destroying its military and political capabilities to the point where the terrorist group can never again launch major attacks against Israeli civilians — is unlikely to work.
Indeed, Israel is likely already producing more terrorists than it's killing.
To defeat terrorist groups like Hamas, it is important to separate the terrorists from the local population from which they emerge. Otherwise, the current generation of terrorists can be killed, only to be replaced by a new, larger generation of terrorists in the future. (This is described by experts as "counterinsurgency mathematics." )
Although the principle — of separating the terror group from the broader population — is simple, it is incredibly difficult to achieve in practice.
This is why Israel and the United States have waged major military operations that killed large numbers of existing terrorists in the near term — but ultimately led to the rise of many more terrorists, often in a matter of months.
Exactly this pattern happened in the past when:
1.) Israel invaded Southern Lebanon with some 78,000 combat troops and almost 3,000 tanks and armored vehicles in June 1982.
The goal was to smash PLO terrorists, and Israel achieved significant near-term success. However, this military operation caused the creation of Hezbollah in July 1982, led to vast local support for Hezbollah and waves of suicide attacks and ultimately led to the withdrawal of Israel's army from much of southern Lebanon in 1985 and the growth of Hezbollah ever since.
2.) Israel maintained a heavy military occupation of Gaza and the West Bank from the early 1990s to 2005.
These operations succeeded in killing many terrorists from Hamas and other Palestinian groups, but also triggered vast local support for the terrorist groups and massive campaigns of suicide attacks against Israelis that stopped only when the heavy Israeli military forces left. Far from defeated, Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian elections.
3.) Israel launched a ground offensive into Lebanon in July-August 2006.
Although the goal was to completely destroy Hezbollah's leaders and fighters so that it could never again kidnap Israeli soldiers and launch missiles at Israeli cities, the Israeli offensive failed, and Hezbollah is vastly stronger today as a result.
4.) The United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003 with 150,000 combat troops.
American forces completely defeated Saddam Hussein's army within 6 weeks. However, these heavy military operations led to the largest suicide terrorist campaign in modern times, a major civil war in Iraq and ultimately, the rise of ISIS.
Is history repeating in Gaza 2023?
In Gaza, this tragic pattern is probably already happening. Right now, we are witnessing not the separation of Hamas and the local population, but the growing integration of the two, with likely growing recruitment for Hamas.
The Israeli order for 1.1 million Palestinians — the population of northern Gaza — to move south is not going to create meaningful separation between the terrorists and the population.
Many thousands cannot move because they are too young, too old, or too sick or injured and dependent on specialized care and hospitals. Hence, evacuating the entire civilian population of northern Gaza is not possible. Even if the civilian population did move, many Hamas fighters would simply go with them.
Moreover, Hamas has ordered civilians not to evacuate. Since Hamas and the civilian population remain tightly integrated, it is no surprise that Israeli operations to kill Hamas terrorists has led to the death of over 8,000 civilians, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Ramallah, citing sources from Hamas-controlled Gaza. Virtually all have family members who are already likely being recruited by Hamas in large numbers.
We should expect that Hamas is thus growing stronger, not weaker, with every passing day.
So, what does work?
To defeat terrorist groups, it is crucial to engage in long campaigns of selective pressure, over years, not simply a month (or two, or three) of heavy ground operations, and to combine military operations with political solutions from early on.
Indeed, the very effort to finish off the terrorists in just a month or two militarily with little idea of the political outcome — as Israel appears to be doing now — is what ends up producing more terrorists than it kills.
The only way to create lasting damage to terrorists is to combine, typically in a long campaign of years, sustained selective attacks against identified terrorists with political operations that drive wedges between the terrorists and the local populations from which they come.
Israel is drawing comparisons with the defeat of ISIS, but it is important to remember that Muslim ground forces made an enormous difference by applying military pressure against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, over years, in ways that did not galvanize the local population to replace them, by allowing the local populations to effectively govern the area cleansed of terrorists.
The campaign that defeated ISIS joined military and political operations together practically from the beginning.
Going forward, Israel needs a new strategic conception for defeating Hamas. The only viable way to separate Hamas from the local population is politically.
Israel's strategic vision has been to go in heavily militarily first and then figure out the political process later. But this is likely to integrate Hamas and the local population together more and more and to produce more terrorists than it kills.
Furthermore, Israel doesn't appear to have a political plan for the period after eliminating Hamas. Since 2006, Hamas has been the only government in Gaza. Israel claims it does not want to govern Gaza, but Gaza will need to be governed, and Israel has yet to explain what a post-Hamas Gaza will look like.
What will prevent Hamas 2.0 from filling the power vacuum? Given the absence of serious political alternatives to Hamas, why should Palestinians abandon Hamas?
There is an alternative: now, not later, start the political process toward a pathway to a Palestinian state, and create a viable political alternative for Palestinians to Hamas.
This could, over time, separate Hamas from the local population more and more, and so lead to significant success. It must be the Palestinians who decide who leads Gaza.
This new strategic conception is the best way to defeat Hamas, secure Israel's population and advance America's interests in the region.
For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com
I kinda thought you would respond in your own words.
I understand Israeli reactions to the atrocities carried out against its civilian population.
Today I saw a video of a five year old girl crying at a hospital in Gaza because she was sure her sister had died in the rubble from which she'd been pulled. I'm not sure how I'd react if that was my life, but I expect Hamas recruitment is going to be fine for years to come no matter how many are killed in the current battles.
I don't presume to tell Isralis nor Palestinians what to do or feel, but I don't expect the current Israeli attack on Gaza will produce positive results for any of the parties - long term or short term.
Quote from: Jacob on November 01, 2023, 04:57:17 PMI don't presume to tell Isralis nor Palestinians what to do or feel, but I don't expect the current Israeli attack on Gaza will produce positive results for any of the parties - long term or short term.
I don't know because I don't know what Israel is planning to do right now.
I certainly agree that if the plan is to just pound gaza for a few months, kill some terrorists (and inevitably civilians) then leave again then nothing will be accomplished long-term.
Quote from: Barrister on November 01, 2023, 04:59:54 PMI don't know because I don't know what Israel is planning to do right now.
I certainly agree that if the plan is to just pound gaza for a few months, kill some terrorists (and inevitably civilians) then leave again then nothing will be accomplished long-term.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't. How many of us would proudly sport star of David pins if Israel announced they planned to occupy Gaza indefinitely?
Israel conquers the WB and Gaza and they get decades of terrorism and Hamas and international condemnation. Israel goes into Lebanon and withdraws, and gets decades of cross border attacks.
I think some of you have misunderstood counterinsurgency. "Man we hate what our enemy did, so we're going to keep fighting", is not normally enough to sustain meaningful military activities.
Israel literally occupies the West Bank, and residents of the West Bank have tons of grievances against Israel, hate Israel massively--and in some number join terrorist groups.
Israel occupied Gaza from 1968-2005 or so and that same calculus applied.
Hamas controls an entire city, this is like ISIS controlled cities in Iraq and Syria. This allows for an entirely different scale of operations.
I can assure you that Hamas removed of its possession of a city will not be capable of stockpiling the resources, mobilizing forces en masse, etc that would be required to do a repeat of 10/7.
I think people often confuse lessons learned from American low manpower occupations of very large countries, as though it teaches certain truisms about insurgencies that aren't universally applicable. Gaza is small and can be controlled by Israel, it has been before.
Hamas cannot operate as it does now without control of Gaza.
The fact that it would continue to operate as a small terrorist group would not be dramatically different from the situation in the West Bank, which has never produced anything approaching 10/7.
It does feel like Hamas will be the big winners in this, after all is said and done.
It is very sad.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2023, 05:07:37 PMQuote from: Barrister on November 01, 2023, 04:59:54 PMI don't know because I don't know what Israel is planning to do right now.
I certainly agree that if the plan is to just pound gaza for a few months, kill some terrorists (and inevitably civilians) then leave again then nothing will be accomplished long-term.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't. How many of us would proudly sport star of David pins if Israel announced they planned to occupy Gaza indefinitely?
Israel conquers the WB and Gaza and they get decades of terrorism and Hamas and international condemnation. Israel goes into Lebanon and withdraws, and gets decades of cross border attacks.
Most likely, and we only know this with hindsight--Israel should have maintained the occupation of Gaza in line with the West Bank.
10/7, which would never be possible in the West Bank, was more Israeli dead than I think the last like 30 years of Intifadas and terrorist attacks combine. It is of such a huge scale that it strongly raises the question as to whether Israel was ever smart to withdraw from Gaza.
Lebanon is more complex--Israel could not really stay there forever, but I think a major strategic mistake has occurred in the United States not doing more to stop the growth of Iranian militias throughout the Middle East.
We have largely done nothing about it because any solution has costs we didn't want to pay, but we now have significant Iranian militias causing problems in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq--in Yemen and Lebanon they significantly destabilize the country, in Iraq they partially do, and in Syria they helped keep a chemical weapons using genocidist in power.
It raises serious questions if American policy needs called into question. A canard is peace in the Middle East can never occur until the Israel-Palestine conflict is settled, but it looks increasingly likely to me you can never get back to a path to peace on that conflict as long as Iran is running proxy forces in half a dozen countries.
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 01, 2023, 05:15:28 PMIt does feel like Hamas will be the big winners in this, after all is said and done.
It is very sad.
Yeah, similar to how ISIS was the big winner after the Arab Spring.
(Oh wait, ISIS has largely been destroyed.)
ISIS was destroyed because its power became directly linked to controlling cities, which were then taken from them.
Hamas power is directly linked to controlling Gaza, which is being taken away from them.
Hamas isn't going to come out of this as a winner, remotely.
Iran is likely the main beneficiary of this, but will lose Hamas control of Gaza as a consequence. But this also gives them more room to continue arming and beefing up Hezbollah and other militias.
Honestly at this point, permanent Israeli occupation of both the West Bank & Gaza bankrolled by the US seems to be the only feasible solution to the situation. Can't see a UN style administration being set up in Gaza, and the West Bank will be as before.
Then there's Southern Lebanon, should Israel permanently occupy that too? For all the talk of the Palestinians being penned in by the Israelis, so too are the Israelis penned in by the Arab states, all of whom have fought Israel within living memory. What holds true for Palestine goes for Israel too. Plus the massive trauma of the Holocaust for Israel. It's like a never ending story of the bullied becoming the bully and vice versa.
Yeah, it feels increasingly like Israel's best option now is occupying Gaza again.
It's very depressing.
As I said the only solution for Palestine is to have some other 3rd party provide their security while they disarm the terrorists and allow the Palestinians to form a functioning government.
Otherwise I don't see any practical alternative to just...things continuing basically as they are. And that will never happen, I assume, so things will pretty much continue indefinitely. I would love for some Palestine supporter to come tell me what the better solution is though.
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 01, 2023, 05:30:02 PMYeah, it feels increasingly like Israel's best option now is occupying Gaza again.
It's very depressing.
I wish I had the forum from 2006 but I basically said that unless the Palestinians receive tons of help in Gaza they are doomed to eventually come under Israeli occupation again. It felt like everybody was being set up to fail.
Not that the pre-2005 situation was some sort of success.
At the end of the day Israel is relatively "safe" from most of its Arab neighbors.
It is not facing invasion from Egypt and Jordan, as it once did. Syria is far too imploded from losing like a third of its population and most of its economy during its Civil War to pose any conventional military threat. Saudi Arabia is a transactionalist power disinterested in something like an Islamic crusade.
Its main enemies now are Iran, and really Iranian proxies.
The good thing is I think there is a nonzero chance America would react to an outright Iranian attack on Israel as something it had to respond to due to its implications in terms of the balance of power in the Middle East, so it is really the Iranian proxies Israel has to contend with.
All this says Israel's real immediate threat is most likely the same problem it has dealt with as its primary trouble since the end of the Arab-Israeli wars, and that is the settlement of the Palestinian problem. There is no way I see that ending without serious compromise by Israel, a major rejection of the Israeli far right and etc. Because the only brute force way to solve the problem is genocide, kill or push all the Palestinians out of the country. But Israel would have to fall into a state of true right wing autocracy and become a pariah state to do that, so that isn't (I hope) going to happen. So we are back to Israel's chief problem is really finding a way for its society to accept that Palestine gets to have a state, including most likely dismantling of at least some West Bank settlements. Dunno how things get there from here.
QuoteSo we are back to Israel's chief problem is really finding a way for its society to accept that Palestine gets to have a state, including most likely dismantling of at least some West Bank settlements. Dunno how things get there from here.
Current circumstances would have to fundamentally change somehow.
How many Palestinians even want permanent settlement based on a two state solution? And it is hard to imagine 2023 Israel agreeing to do something like withdraw to the 1967 borders or whatever would be required to make that feasible.
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 01, 2023, 05:15:28 PMIt does feel like Hamas will be the big winners in this, after all is said and done.
It is very sad.
Maybe in the short-medium term. I think in the long run it makes it clearer that Israel cannot pretend that Palestinians and their desire for statehood don't exist and they can't reconcile within the wider region until that's resolved. I also don't think they'll be secure until then. I don't think it's impossible to see this war with Gaza, with a West Bank uprising then joined by Hezbollah.
I'd add interesting detail from something I heard from Shashank Joshi from the Economist recently on the Hezbollah risk. I hadn't appreciated that Iron Dome is basically selective in its targeting and only hits those on their way to populated areas. This works as long as Hamas and Hezbollah don't fire too many at once and while they had relatively imprecise targetting. Hamas at the start of October 7 were firing thousands which did overwhelm Iron Dome. Apparently they and Hezbollah also have increasingly precise targetting so the number to overwhelm could be reduced if all the rockets can be accurately targeted at populated areas.
That means the drift of Israeli politics for the last 20 years or so has been into a dead end and it's impossible to see them move forward with the current leadership. It also shows a need for Israel (and the West, and Arab allies) to have a Palestinian counterparty, which is not Hamas. Again I very much doubt it's the current PA leadership either.
I think what's happened points, again, to two states for two people as the only viable solution and the futility/dead end-ness of the one state solutioners either among Israelis or Palestinians. I'm not sure how long it'll take to get there especially as I think it means the dominant politicians in both Israel and Palestine will need to be replaced.
QuoteHow many Palestinians even want permanent settlement based on a two state solution? And it is hard to imagine 2023 Israel agreeing to do something like withdraw to the 1967 borders or whatever would be required to make that feasible.
I believe it's down to about 30%. It was over 50% a decade ago. Support for a two state solution is also down to about 30%. But again I think it's aprt of the process of the last two decades which have made - support for a to state solution have declined precisely as (and I'd argue partly because) the political possibility for one also declined.
I think the need will re-open the possibility politically and that will be the basis for building support.
I think the growth of Iran's power has taken a lot of this out of Israel's hands. The sad reality is the assassination of Rabin, and the move towards Likud occurred at what may have been the last clean window for Israel to get to some reasonable two state solution.
Now that Iran is so powerful in the region, I don't see any means of a 2SS peace process, Iran will simply have its militias ceaselessly attack Israel and draw it into wars again and again--it won't matter if Israel and some Palestinian entity can try to negotiate if Iranian backed groups keep a state of constant war in place.
If Iran has still managed to grow in power despite the sanctions, then obviously the sanctions aren't working effectively. Or we need even tougher sanctions on them. As for intervention by the US, I can't see that anytime soon, not unless there is a major escalation in the current conflict.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 01, 2023, 06:08:33 PMI think the growth of Iran's power has taken a lot of this out of Israel's hands. The sad reality is the assassination of Rabin, and the move towards Likud occurred at what may have been the last clean window for Israel to get to some reasonable two state solution.
Now that Iran is so powerful in the region, I don't see any means of a 2SS peace process, Iran will simply have its militias ceaselessly attack Israel and draw it into wars again and again--it won't matter if Israel and some Palestinian entity can try to negotiate if Iranian backed groups keep a state of constant war in place.
I think that's a fair point, but I think the other side of this is that the growth of Iran's power increases the incentives for other powers in the region to want Israel reconciled and integrated into regional security.
It may be that Iran on their own can spoil things but I think the other new element is Saudi and Gulf concern at Iran's power which may bolster the ability and legitimacy of some Palestinian entity (as I say, not Abbas) that is in a position to engage with Israel. I think that's a new feature and I think at the minute Saudi and the Gulf are the leaders of the Arab world, I think it'll be the first time leaders would have had any interest in that (for example, say, Nasser asbolutely didn't).
Quote from: PJL on November 01, 2023, 06:12:16 PMIf Iran has still managed to grow in power despite the sanctions, then obviously the sanctions aren't working effectively. Or we need even tougher sanctions on them. As for intervention by the US, I can't see that anytime soon, not unless there is a major escalation in the current conflict.
U.S. will definitely not intervene w/direct military action against Iran sans some serious Iranian attack.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 01, 2023, 05:35:04 PMAt the end of the day Israel is relatively "safe" from most of its Arab neighbors.
It is not facing invasion from Egypt and Jordan, as it once did. Syria is far too imploded from losing like a third of its population and most of its economy during its Civil War to pose any conventional military threat. Saudi Arabia is a transactionalist power disinterested in something like an Islamic crusade.
Its main enemies now are Iran, and really Iranian proxies.
The good thing is I think there is a nonzero chance America would react to an outright Iranian attack on Israel as something it had to respond to due to its implications in terms of the balance of power in the Middle East, so it is really the Iranian proxies Israel has to contend with.
All this says Israel's real immediate threat is most likely the same problem it has dealt with as its primary trouble since the end of the Arab-Israeli wars, and that is the settlement of the Palestinian problem. There is no way I see that ending without serious compromise by Israel, a major rejection of the Israeli far right and etc. Because the only brute force way to solve the problem is genocide, kill or push all the Palestinians out of the country. But Israel would have to fall into a state of true right wing autocracy and become a pariah state to do that, so that isn't (I hope) going to happen. So we are back to Israel's chief problem is really finding a way for its society to accept that Palestine gets to have a state, including most likely dismantling of at least some West Bank settlements. Dunno how things get there from here.
One of the things necessary for concessions on the right of return to happen is that the UN stops seeing all Palestinians as refugees. I don't think that is the case for any other group of people that they're still all refugees after 80 years.
Once that's the case a symbolic right can be agreed upon for only those people who were alive when it happened.
Potentially the arab states should also agree to return what they stole from the jews they chased out around that time.
edit: another thing that needs to happen is that muslims need to stop teaching their children that unbelievers are evil and need to be eradicated, and the jews are the worst of the unbelievers. And that's something that needs to happen in schools over there and in mosques everywhere, including in the West (which needs to come down on that shit with a very heavy hand). That'll help in the long term to reduce the number of religious fanatics that are produced in the region.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 31, 2023, 08:27:06 PMBoth sides have been dehumanizing each other for decades. IMO, it hasn't "taken" into as many Israelis as Palestinians (where it seems to have reached near universal consensus).
The attacks on 07Oct2023 are proof of that dehumanization on a shocking scale. The IDF response is also a proof of that. I really wonder what's their "acceptable civilian casualties" prior to approving a strike.
Good points
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2023, 05:32:05 PMAs I said the only solution for Palestine is to have some other 3rd party provide their security while they disarm the terrorists and allow the Palestinians to form a functioning government.
Otherwise I don't see any practical alternative to just...things continuing basically as they are. And that will never happen, I assume, so things will pretty much continue indefinitely. I would love for some Palestine supporter to come tell me what the better solution is though.
Quote from: FunkMonk on November 01, 2023, 05:30:02 PMYeah, it feels increasingly like Israel's best option now is occupying Gaza again.
It's very depressing.
I wish I had the forum from 2006 but I basically said that unless the Palestinians receive tons of help in Gaza they are doomed to eventually come under Israeli occupation again. It felt like everybody was being set up to fail.
Not that the pre-2005 situation was some sort of success.
But occupation is also unworkable. Which is why some speculate, that what the Israelis are really up to is removing the Palestinian population.
Only idiots are speculating that.
What might be interesting is temporary eviction, screen through the civilians to see who can be identified as a fighter/terrorist, then return when Israel has squashed Hamas.
Reminds me of another story I heard on NPR some time back. Some Hezbollah dude or Hezbollah adjacent dude was saying that their "red line" was the destruction of Hamas. "We're mad now, but boy we'll be supermad if you do that!"
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 01, 2023, 07:04:32 PMOnly idiots are speculating that.
If you read
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 01, 2023, 07:04:32 PMOnly idiots are speculating that.
You mean like JR who said he is concerned about the approach of some currently in cabinet?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 01, 2023, 09:11:08 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 01, 2023, 07:04:32 PMOnly idiots are speculating that.
If you readQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 01, 2023, 07:04:32 PMOnly idiots are speculating that.
You mean like JR who said he is concerned about the approach of some currently in cabinet?
You can go to bed. There are 2.3m people in Gaza Strip, when the war is over there will be around 2.3m people in Gaza Strip.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 01, 2023, 09:15:39 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 01, 2023, 09:11:08 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 01, 2023, 07:04:32 PMOnly idiots are speculating that.
If you readQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 01, 2023, 07:04:32 PMOnly idiots are speculating that.
You mean like JR who said he is concerned about the approach of some currently in cabinet?
You can go to bed. There are 2.3m people in Gaza Strip, when the war is over there will be around 2.3m people in Gaza Strip.
Well, yeah, apart from the people that were removed, today were seriously injured and oh yeah, all the people who were killed, and we are all the people who would actually return because they are terrified but other than that yeah.
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2023, 05:32:05 PMAs I said the only solution for Palestine is to have some other 3rd party provide their security while they disarm the terrorists and allow the Palestinians to form a functioning government.
I've been told for more than 20 years here and P*dox that Israel would always refuse such a deal.
In short:
- No contiguous territory for a Palestinian state
- No security deal with a 3rd party
- A Palestinian state that is unable to police itself therefore unable to provide meaningful security guarantees
- Israel is opposed to any right of return, especially if it puts the Jewish population in a minority position, so a one state solution is unthinkable (totally understandable, but I'm not the one who criticizes nationalism :P )
- Israel thinks the West Bank is needed for its viability
- Israel does not want to dismantle its colonies
- The US will never pressure Israel to stop colonization
- Israel has already won: the government is willing to accept civilian loss of life and the civilians are willing to accept Palestinian loss of life, even on the left because they're scared, due to right wing policies.
- No peace until the remaining Palestinians are expelled. The agenda has simply been moved up. Instead of another 20 years, it's gonna take another 2 to clean up Gaza, then they'll shift their attention back to settling the West Bank.
I think it's no wonder the UN and most Western countries have shifted their stance and are asking for a truce. They don't want a Palestinian refugee problem on their arms and they have just realized this is the plan. People are slow to understand sometimes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2023, 07:22:29 PMWhat might be interesting is temporary eviction, screen through the civilians to see who can be identified as a fighter/terrorist, then return when Israel has squashed Hamas.
Temporary like 1948, or temporary like 1956 or temporary like 1967?
If the plan is to push Gazans out of the strip then why aren't they doing that? Why are they in Gaza City fighting in tunnels? If you want to push Gazans into Egypt the IDF could do so in like 24 hours. Maybe it's because that isn't happening.
Man, these totally made up fake claims of genocide really are shockingly close to the blood libel. There is zero point zero evidence anything like it is happening, but you gleefully repeat and lie about it, carrying water for Hamas to try and delegitimize Israel, to try and insulate Hamas from consequence for murdering 1400 civilians.
What's next guys, we going to talk about how the Jews are killing the Palestinians so they can use their children's blood in their evil Jew rituals? Bake the blood into some of their foul Jew bread? If you're going to blood libel just go ahead and go all in.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 01, 2023, 09:55:38 PMIf the plan is to push Gazans out of the strip then why aren't they doing that? Why are they in Gaza City fighting in tunnels? If you want to push Gazans into Egypt the IDF could do so in like 24 hours. Maybe it's because that isn't happening.
There are hostages to free, maybe? There are terrorists to kill? Weapons cache to destroy in the short term?
I'm not doubting the capabilities of the IDF here. I know, militarily speaking, they could wipe out everything alive, Jewish, Christians, Muslim or non human in a a few days.
But not all IDF soldiers are bloody murderers willing to commit genocide, and not all IDF soldiers are willing to forget about the hostages and the government is not ready to pay the political price for forgetting about them and committing genocide.
So, give it a couple of years. They'll do their best to rescue the hostages, kill as many Hamas combatants as they can while eliminating the other Palestinians as casualties of war to scare them enough, then try to find the survivors a place, anywhere that is not Gaza.
If you want to bet that there will be 2.3 million Gazans by the end of the war, I would advise against it as you have already lost your bet, as CC pointed out.
I mean the Gazan deaths have not reduced the population below 2.3m, you may not have noticed but CC is talking out of his ass nonstop in this thread. Their pop wasn't 2,308,000.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 01, 2023, 10:13:52 PMMan, these totally made up fake claims of genocide really are shockingly close to the blood libel. There is zero point zero evidence anything like it is happening, but you gleefully repeat and lie about it, carrying water for Hamas to try and delegitimize Israel, to try and insulate Hamas from consequence for murdering 1400 civilians.
Genocide? Where did I talk about genocide? I talked about ethnic cleansing. As in removing people. They're not going to kill 2.3 million people. They're going to kill 20 or 30 thousand people and force most of the civilians to flee into a tiny corner near Egypt.
Hamas killed 1400 civilians. That should never have happened. That it did happen is a total failure of this government. If you have rabid wolves in a cage, you don't leave the fucking door open while your kids are playing next to it.
Hamas are a bloody terrorist group. They are the sworn enemy of Israel. They are sworn to destroy Israel. They made it their holy mission to kill Jews all around the world. Why on Earth would you leave the border with this group unguarded? It's criminal negligence and the government officials responsible for deploying troops elsewhere should be prosecuted for this.
As for the Hamas terrorists, even as they were raised in their hatred of Jews, I've read that they were totally drugged to commit their atrocities. Let's talk about the supposed indefectible support of Hamas in Gaza, m'kay?
Polls show majority of Gazans were against breaking ceasefire (https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-show-majority-gazans-were-against-breaking-ceasefire-hamas-and-hezbollah)
Seems to me, all Israel had to do was to push a little in the right direction to destabilize Hamas instead of the PA. But since the beginning, they did the opposite... Again & again & again. Support the religious nuts instead of the secular movements showing overtures of peace. Can't get over the mistrust. I guess the Bible was right about a few things on those Israelites.
Israel has a right to destroy the military rule of Hamas, simple fact. International law says so. Morality says so.
The rest is just the bleating of Hamas apologists. Everyone crying and raging and burning synagogues is just mad Muslims are losing a war to filthy, evil Jews.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 01, 2023, 10:35:04 PMI mean the Gazan deaths have not reduced the population below 2.3m, you may not have noticed but CC is talking out of his ass nonstop in this thread. Their pop wasn't 2,308,000.
Is the war over? I hadn't realized it was over! Great news! I shall alert the medias in your name.
You said that the population would not change from pre-war. I presumed you gave me the right number, 2.3m pre war, 2.3m after war. I didn't check those numbers.
I did not say it wouldn't change. I said
QuoteThere are 2.3m people in Gaza Strip, when the war is over there will be around 2.3m people in Gaza Strip.
There will be no "purge" like you are trying to lie about to libel Jews.
I'm seeing videos from Gaza about civilians turning on Hamas, chasing them away from supplies and even a video of some dude begging the US to come in and erase Hamas.
If they're Israeli propaganda or who's behind them I don't know, but if they reflect some kind of anti-Hamas sentiment from within Gaza they're a bit heartening and hopeful for the future.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2023, 04:59:22 AMI put my neck on the line to get you off the hook and this is what I get. :(
This line exactly fits what DGuller and Otto were saying: you are claiming mainstream news sources are calling the strikes "terror bombing."
Nope. You got it right. I am not quoting anyone and made no claims to be doing so.
Looking at the footage...yeah, that's terror bombing.
QuoteI disagree. There is no burden of proof either way. No one has demonstrated conclusively that at least one Israeli bomb has landed on a target that is 100% devoid of military value, but that doesn't mean I'm free to assert that every single bomb is landing on a high value military target. The only reasonable conclusions to reach right now have to be highly qualified, acknowledge the uncertainty, and subject to revision. You calling it terror bombing is none of those things. You are expressing certainty.
To claim military significance for the sheer amount of civilian areas Israel have bombed seems unlikely in the extreme. Israel have come up with excuses for some of their attacks; for others all we get is silence.
I'm far from a lone voice in this calling out Israeli actions.
Absolutely there's no certainty. We shouldn't just grab the Israeli leadership and put them up against the wall.
But a proper thorough war crime investigation should be (and won't be) conducted.
QuoteHow should they be doing it? What military capabilities do they have that would still kill terrorists but leave the civilians alone?
As said this goes way beyond my domain. I doubt there's a perfect 100% guaranteed zero civilian casualties option. As mentioned US drone strikes, in theory perfect, still have lots of screw ups.
I suspect however that recognising this Israel has decided in for a penny, in for a pound, and aren't putting in any more than the most token efforts to limit civilian casualties. Why bother with micro-targeting individual targets when they show their face outside when they can just level a city block where they're 60% certain a Hamas leader probably lives.
QuoteIts not the disagreement which reaffirms my position. Its the manner of the disagreement.
Not "Terror bombing is over the top language" or anything like that. Its "Don't you dare say anything bad about Israel you Islamic extremist you!"
How can you possibly defend yourself by making up a quote and putting it in quotation marks? Dude. I've been reading this thread. That line is a fabrication.
I didn't make up any quotes.
Putting the summary in "speech marks" rather than as a
Quotequote
makes clear its paraphrasing rather than quoting. The words are obvious exaggeration, hence the purposefully silly phrasing, but the meaning and feeling is intact.
Some people just won't accept that Israel just possibly might be doing something less than good. Hamas have shown themselves as villains (to some they're clearly so just by virtue of being Muslims) so anyone opposing them must therefore be perfect paladins.
Hamas has hade years and years to build their military structures. They are purposely built under, inside or perhaps next to the most visually harmful civilian targets Hamas can find.
For example: Israel is not hitting a mosque because they have a hunch some Hamas leader is leading children in prayer there, they are hitting that mosque because Hamas has made it into a military target that Israel cannot hit because hitting a mosque is visually bad for Israel.
Every Gaza military structure worth taking out means taking out some civilian target, often forcefully populated by Hamas. They have weapon factories inside hospitals for example. The US does not have magical cruise missiles capable of going through an apartment block to hit the rocket factory under it without damaging the apartment block. Israel has tried with the knocking and by some miracle it actually seems like they still do the knocking thing.
The blame for those civilian targets getting hit lies squarely and singularly on the Palestinian government of Gaza, because it's they that made those civilian constructions into legal military targets.
Now, Israel can be blamed if there is no military value in the things they hit or if they use too much force, but as of yet I have seen no believable evidence of that happening.
The thing that bothered me most was the cutting off of water. It didn't seem to have any obvious military purpose. WIlling to be persuaded otherwise.
As far as the miltary operations are concerned, it's impossible to make any judgement at this stage other tan the obvious fact that you can't attack Hamas without collateral civilian damage.
Quote from: Threviel on November 02, 2023, 04:36:06 AMThe blame for those civilian targets getting hit lies squarely and singularly on the Palestinian government of Gaza, because it's they that made those civilian constructions into legal military targets.
I'll distribute a little bit of blame to the Western useful idiots as well. Putting civilians on top of weapon caches works because the useful idiots in the West make it work. If the useful idiots were a little less proud of being unwilling to be convinced, and a little more interested in truly trying to understand what was being done and by whom, maybe Hamas would find that this tactic actually makes them look like the bad guys. They're not stupid, they won't stick to a tactic that won't work.
Quote from: DGuller on November 02, 2023, 08:04:35 AMQuote from: Threviel on November 02, 2023, 04:36:06 AMThe blame for those civilian targets getting hit lies squarely and singularly on the Palestinian government of Gaza, because it's they that made those civilian constructions into legal military targets.
I'll distribute a little bit of blame to the Western useful idiots as well. Putting civilians on top of weapon caches works because the useful idiots in the West make it work. If the useful idiots were a little less proud of being unwilling to be convinced, and a little more interested in truly trying to understand what was being done and by whom, maybe Hamas would find that this tactic actually makes them look like the bad guys. They're not stupid, they won't stick to a tactic that won't work.
Agree with this.
Quote from: Josquius on November 02, 2023, 04:12:59 AMNope. You got it right. I am not quoting anyone and made no claims to be doing so.
Looking at the footage...yeah, that's terror bombing.
How do you know? How do you identify "terror bombing"?
He doesn't know. Anytime Jihadi Josq uses the term "terror bombing" he has admitted he is simply lying, spreading Hamas propaganda for evil intent.
Josquius is a fascist. I'm not relying on any specific evidence of that. Looking at his posts...yeah, that's fascist writing.
Quote from: grumbler on November 02, 2023, 08:51:09 AMJosquius is a fascist. I'm not relying on any specific evidence of that. Looking at his posts...yeah, that's fascist writing.
He does want to make people live in vertical boxes and forbidden from driving cars...
Being more serious my guess is Josq is just too enmeshed in lefty "culture" which uncritically blasts everything Israel does and isn't willing to actually inform himself beyond his preconceptions.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 02, 2023, 08:53:37 AMBeing more serious my guess is Josq is just too enmeshed in lefty "culture" which uncritically blasts everything Israel does and isn't willing to actually inform himself beyond his preconceptions.
It's not Israel, it's anything that arms, in any way, vulnerable populations.
QuoteBeing more serious my guess is Josq is just too enmeshed in lefty "culture" which uncritically blasts everything Israel does and isn't willing to actually inform himself beyond his preconceptions.
Except I've already established that isn't the case no matter what undead useful idiots like yourself might say. I'm getting my reporting on this largely from the BBC.
As to terror bombing
QuoteThe term terror bombing is used to describe the strategic bombing of civilian targets without military value, in the hope of damaging an enemy's morale.
Argue if you like that Israel has something else in mind. But by all appearances its hard to see what that could be.
Certainly this 'triggered at the mere insulation Israel are bombing civilians' pearl clutching is a silly extremist viewpoint.
QuoteI'll distribute a little bit of blame to the Western useful idiots as well. Putting civilians on top of weapon caches works because the useful idiots in the West make it work. If the useful idiots were a little less proud of being unwilling to be convinced, and a little more interested in truly trying to understand what was being done and by whom, maybe Hamas would find that this tactic actually makes them look like the bad guys. They're not stupid, they won't stick to a tactic that won't work.
[
Don't forget the useful idiots who will defend Israel no matter what they do so they can get away with civilian casualty rates on a level that would be in no way acceptable to western militaries.
If only they were a little less proud of being unwilling to be convinced, and a little more interested in truly trying to understand what was being done and by whom, maybe Israel would find that this tactic actually makes them look like the bad guys. They're not stupid, they won't stuck to a tactic that won't work.
Israel has done thousands of strikes in Gaza. Of those how many lacked military value?
Quote from: Josquius on November 02, 2023, 09:13:01 AMAs to terror bombing
QuoteThe term terror bombing is used to describe the strategic bombing of civilian targets without military value, in the hope of damaging an enemy's morale.
Argue if you like that Israel has something else in mind. But by all appearances its hard to see what that could be.
Certainly this 'triggered at the mere insulation Israel are bombing civilians' peal clutching is a silly extremist viewpoint.
No-one here is arguing in the slightest that the IDF isn't bombing and killing lots of civilians, because they are doing that. What we are arguing is that the reason they are doing that is that the government of Gaza has built its military infrastructure on the basis that the IDF has to kill a lot of civilians to get at them, so that dumb half-wits ignorants like yourself will go around and sprout dumb half-wit ignorant bullshit and create political pressure to get Israel to stop bombing military targets in Gaza.
We are arguing that the party responsible for those civilians dying is the party that uses civilians as human shields to their military infrastructure.
I don't think I have either enough time or crayons enough to explain it in a way you understand.
Quote from: Josquius on November 02, 2023, 04:12:59 AMAbsolutely there's no certainty.
Then why are you incapable of expressing uncertainty when talking about terror bombing?
Threviel - IMO it's pretty clear that Josq's point of view is - as Grey Fox says - that the way the Palestinian civilian population is being harmed by Israel's attack is terrible and unconscionable; and furthermore that he doesn't think "it's Hamas fault because of where they operate", "it's the Palestinians' own fault because they elected Hamas and opinion polls say they still support them", or "well, it's a war and civilians die in wars unfortunately" changes that.
Drawing pictures with crayons or finding different ways to state that Hamas terrible, that Hamas is deliberately using civilians as cover, that Israel is following the laws of war, or that Israel has to respond because of the atrocities inflicted upon its own civilian population is not going to change that.
It's not a matter of explaining the facts - I think they're pretty clear by now (with some allowances for the fog of war). Nor is it a matter of explaining the reasoning - everyone's clearly explained their positions several times over.
What is happening is that you are assigning different weights to competing moral factors and assessing the facts differently.
It seems really weird to describe Hamas as a terrorist group. It makes it sound like the Red Army Faction. They govern a territory with the population similar to Latvia. They have a bigger army than Sweden's (at least active duty). They have courts, government services, ministries... I think they may have surpassed "terrorist group".
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 02, 2023, 08:49:00 AMHe doesn't know. Anytime Jihadi Josq uses the term "terror bombing" he has admitted he is simply lying, spreading Hamas propaganda for evil intent.
I really don't want to call Josq names (even though for some reason he thought I was a Trump supporter), I kinda like Josq.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2023, 10:09:17 AMIt seems really weird to describe Hamas as a terrorist group. It makes it sound like the Red Army Faction. They govern a territory with the population similar to Latvia. They have a bigger army than Sweden's (at least active duty). They have courts, government services, ministries... I think they may have surpassed "terrorist group".
One does not exclude the other.
But then, if they are not a terrorist group, it means Israel can use that justification to bomb everything in sight, and their supporters can't use it to turn a blind eye to everything. Kind of a catch-22.
Imho, people who send who send drugged militants to kill children and unarmed civilians so that other people are frightened are terrorists.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2023, 10:30:25 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 02, 2023, 08:49:00 AMHe doesn't know. Anytime Jihadi Josq uses the term "terror bombing" he has admitted he is simply lying, spreading Hamas propaganda for evil intent.
I really don't want to call Josq names (even though for some reason he thought I was a Trump supporter), I kinda like Josq.
Calling people names is a good thing, embrace it.
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2023, 10:06:24 AMThreviel - IMO it's pretty clear that Josq's point of view is - as Grey Fox says - that the way the Palestinian civilian population is being harmed by Israel's attack is terrible and unconscionable; and furthermore that he doesn't think "it's Hamas fault because of where they operate", "it's the Palestinians' own fault because they elected Hamas and opinion polls say they still support them", or "well, it's a war and civilians die in wars unfortunately" changes that.
It's clear to me that his POV is that Israel is purposely bombing purely civilian targets.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 02, 2023, 10:55:47 AMCalling people names is a good thing, embrace it.
It's retarded.
Sir that word is no longer considered kosher.
I'm a pagan. Don't give a shit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2023, 09:50:59 AMQuote from: Josquius on November 02, 2023, 04:12:59 AMAbsolutely there's no certainty.
Then why are you incapable of expressing uncertainty when talking about terror bombing?
Its a casual conversation where we're giving our opinions. Its kind of standard in such a discussion where we're talking about views on a situation and not the core facts to not preface absolutely everything with I think, IMO, etc...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2023, 11:05:42 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 02, 2023, 10:55:47 AMCalling people names is a good thing, embrace it.
It's retarded.
So I have these adorable twin nephews who are literally one on a million kids - they are identical twins, and they both have Down Syndrome.
So on the one hand I think it's stupid. "Retarded" was intended as a replacement for older terms like "mongoloid". And watching my nephews, they are absolutely developmentally delayed, or retarded. They're 8 but have the language ability of a 2 year old. So "retarded" is intellectually a perfectly acceptable word.
But on the other hand - come on. It's used as an insult, as a slur. I'm sure you used it that way on the schoolyard - I know I did.
My sister-in-law (the twins mother) has posted on social media about it being the "R" word, trying to encourage people not to use it. Personally, while I don't treat it like the n-word (you'll notice I did spell it out), it's not a word I'd otherwise use.
Blood libel from UN special UN rapporters.
OvB is going to have a field day.
UN expert warns of new instance of mass ethnic cleansing of Palestinians (https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/un-expert-warns-new-instance-mass-ethnic-cleansing-palestinians-calls)
UN experts say ceasefire needed as Palestinians at 'grave risk of genocide' (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-experts-say-ceasefire-needed-palestinians-grave-risk-genocide-2023-11-02/)
Obviously, it's they UN, they stand for the destruction of Israel, yaddi, yadda, I've all heard that.
I guess OvB is going to call for a trial by combat?
I mean the UN is pretty infamously trash on this topic, since it is controlled by autocrats. I pay very little attention to the antisemitic propaganda that flows out of the UN nonstop for the past 50 years.
Note that is Francesca Albanese you're linking too--a widely known hateful antisemite from Italy (one of the more vile bigoted countries in Europe, full of antisemites and other racists.)
Quote from: DGuller on November 02, 2023, 08:04:35 AMQuote from: Threviel on November 02, 2023, 04:36:06 AMThe blame for those civilian targets getting hit lies squarely and singularly on the Palestinian government of Gaza, because it's they that made those civilian constructions into legal military targets.
I'll distribute a little bit of blame to the Western useful idiots as well. Putting civilians on top of weapon caches works because the useful idiots in the West make it work. If the useful idiots were a little less proud of being unwilling to be convinced, and a little more interested in truly trying to understand what was being done and by whom, maybe Hamas would find that this tactic actually makes them look like the bad guys. They're not stupid, they won't stick to a tactic that won't work.
There's a lot of weapons cache hidden underneath civilians.
Pray tell, how did Hamas get so many weapons while under a blocus? I thought this government was focused on security? How come Hamas has such a huge arsenal? Israel had supposedly destroyed all war capabalities of Hamas in 2021 (I think? It was during the pandemic) and now we're back to square one.
How come this government continually let Hamas rearm itself while focusing on security if Hamas is a bloody threat to Israel's security?
Which is the bigger threat here: people who resist their eviction or the dudes who want to murder all Jews?
It's really hard to tell. I'm no expert at security. Maybe you could tell me? As a fan of this government, I'm sure you can explain that one to me. How does killing unarmed civilians increase the security of Israel vs letting terrorist rearm themselves?
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2023, 10:06:24 AMThreviel - IMO it's pretty clear that Josq's point of view is - as Grey Fox says - that the way the Palestinian civilian population is being harmed by Israel's attack is terrible and unconscionable; and furthermore that he doesn't think "it's Hamas fault because of where they operate", "it's the Palestinians' own fault because they elected Hamas and opinion polls say they still support them", or "well, it's a war and civilians die in wars unfortunately" changes that.
Drawing pictures with crayons or finding different ways to state that Hamas terrible, that Hamas is deliberately using civilians as cover, that Israel is following the laws of war, or that Israel has to respond because of the atrocities inflicted upon its own civilian population is not going to change that.
It's not a matter of explaining the facts - I think they're pretty clear by now (with some allowances for the fog of war). Nor is it a matter of explaining the reasoning - everyone's clearly explained their positions several times over.
What is happening is that you are assigning different weights to competing moral factors and assessing the facts differently.
Yes, if he had discussed Israeli strategy and discussed the morals then he could have easily made an argument that the current Israeli response is bad strategy. Or inhumane or something.
But he isn't. He, like many others, repeat Hamas talking points and Hamas lies and pro-Hamas untruths. And he does not agree about the facts.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 02, 2023, 12:23:40 PMI mean the UN is pretty infamously trash on this topic, since it is controlled by autocrats. I pay very little attention to the antisemitic propaganda that flows out of the UN nonstop for the past 50 years.
Note that is Francesca Albanese you're linking too--a widely known hateful antisemite from Italy (one of the more vile bigoted countries in Europe, full of antisemites and other racists.)
She ain't the most neutral in her vocabulary, but you would have to link me to her hateful anti-semite statements.
She further stated that international community must "prevent and protect populations from atrocity crimes", and that "accountability for international crimes committed by Israeli occupation forces and Hamas must also be immediately pursued." But obviously, coming from someone who hates Muslims, all crimes must be justified, so who cares if they commit crimes or not? Shooting unarmed people, killing children with a bullet the head (he was very, very, very dangerous), that was all done to increase the security of Israel.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/08/28/west-bank-spike-israeli-killings-palestinian-children
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-66682821
But hey, it's ok, they're only evil Muslims, evil cult, and all that? Waddo I know? Not my religion, and I'm committing blood libel against the Jews. It would be insane to pretend this government is targeting civilian Palestinians, after all. Clearly, that unarmed guy shot in the back of the head was a mortal danger.
Ok I completely agree. But pursued by whom? Because I am all for somebody going in and protecting the Palestinians from the Israelis. And vice-versa.
Who does she recommend do this? The "international community" has few soldiers at its command.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2023, 12:56:29 PMOk I completely agree. But pursued by whom? Because I am all for somebody going in and protecting the Palestinians from the Israelis. And vice-versa.
Who does she recommend do this? The "international community" has few soldiers at its command.
Well, Israel would need to define clear objectives. Bombing Gaza and killing civilians in the West Bank will just create a new movement somewhere else, like all the other times they did it.
They might turn Israel into some kind of fortress, but there'll be cracks.
And Western countries won't be immune. Unless the plan is to convince all foreign Jews to emigrate to Israel so they'll be somewhat safer?
As for "international community", it's usually a US/European political pressure to stop Israel first and try release hostages. I can't really Canadian special forces doing the rescue, they don't have the equipment for that, even if they're over there to assist in the evacuation.
Once that is done, it depends of what Israel really wants. I can't see Netanyahu agreeing to any kind of two state solution, he always said he'd be opposed to that. His coallition ministers are a bunch of OvBs who can't tolerate Muslims and don't even want Israeli-Arabs to live in Israel, except along the borders in their seperate communities.
Albanese is a Holocaust minimizer.
Seems like the IDF has reached the coast south of Gaza City, according to their spokeperson they are now starting to round up the tunnels.
Meanwhile, Twitter rumour from Syrian "sources" is that "thousands" of Iranian militia members have started to arrive in Southern Lebanon.
Quote from: Tamas on November 02, 2023, 02:07:24 PMSeems like the IDF has reached the coast south of Gaza City, according to their spokeperson they are now starting to round up the tunnels.
Meanwhile, Twitter rumour from Syrian "sources" is that "thousands" of Iranian militia little green men members have started to arrive in Southern Lebanon.
Corrected FYP.
So there's going to be a counter push, potentially?
Everything I have read suggests the primary reason Hezbollah hasn't intervened is because then Israel has no reason at all not to wage a huge aerial attack against Iran itself (which still has very weak anti air etc compared to the capabilities of Israel—Iran has lots of soldiers and old kit or home brewed Russian knock offs, but has weak / terrible tech).
Basically the Hezbollah border is a Mexican stand off. Israel won't unilaterally bomb Iran because they know a damaging Hezbollah rocket attack will follow. But if that rocket attack comes anyway Israel has no reason not to attack its true source.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 02, 2023, 01:34:53 PMAlbanese is a Holocaust minimizer.
According to Wikipedia she believes Israel is using the guilt of the Holocaust to pursue colonization in occupied Palestinian territories.
Is it what you are referring to or is there something else?
Quote from: Gups on November 02, 2023, 06:20:13 AMThe thing that bothered me most was the cutting off of water. It didn't seem to have any obvious military purpose. WIlling to be persuaded otherwise.
As far as the miltary operations are concerned, it's impossible to make any judgement at this stage other tan the obvious fact that you can't attack Hamas without collateral civilian damage.
The issue will be one of proportionality. I agree that it is difficult to judge and particularly with the fog of war. Also we still need to see what the goal of the Israelis actually is.
Quote from: viper37 on November 02, 2023, 12:39:44 PMhttps://www.hrw.org/news/2023/08/28/west-bank-spike-israeli-killings-palestinian-children
It is an ancient custom for the Arabs to throw rocks at Jews. Before the Zionists came a kid could toss stones at Jews all day and would be praised for it. The imperialist-colonist-settlers came in and destroyed this aspect of beautiful indigenous culture. They shot back!
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2023, 06:06:50 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 02, 2023, 12:39:44 PMhttps://www.hrw.org/news/2023/08/28/west-bank-spike-israeli-killings-palestinian-children
It is an ancient custom for the Arabs to throw rocks at Jews. Before the Zionists came a kid could toss stones at Jews all day and would be praised for it. The imperialist-colonist-settlers came in and destroyed this aspect of beautiful indigenous culture. They shot back!
And yet, the Palestinians must put grids in their settlements to protect themselves from the rocks thrown at them by the Israelis.
Are you saying the Israeli Jews have picked up this custom too? So they're as barbaric as you believe all Arabs are?
If I remember my catechism right, rock throwing was a Jewish thing in ancient times. It was a method of execution favored for certain crimes. I can not tell you where it originated and whom picked it up from whom.
But ancient execution methods and ancient traditions are hardly relevant in the modern context here.
I think it's important to put this act of resistance context: Oppression of Jews.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2023, 07:56:17 PMI think it's important to put this act of resistance context: Oppression of Jews.
Which oppression of Jews? How are Jews oppressed here?
Hamas committed a terror act, it's not oppression, it's a terror act.
Let us look at the definition here:
prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.That fits the definition of the Palestinians. But certainly not the Jewish population of Israel.
Unless you are telling me the government of Israel is applying a prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control of its own people? I have seen no evidence of that, but you are welcome to submit your evidence.
Quote from: viper37 on November 02, 2023, 08:06:42 PMQuote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2023, 07:56:17 PMI think it's important to put this act of resistance context: Oppression of Jews.
Which oppression of Jews? How are Jews oppressed here?
Hamas committed a terror act, it's not oppression, it's a terror act.
Let us look at the definition here:
prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.
That fits the definition of the Palestinians. But certainly not the Jewish population of Israel.
Unless you are telling me the government of Israel is applying a prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control of its own people? I have seen no evidence of that, but you are welcome to submit your evidence.
No, they threw rocks at Jews before the Zionists came. When Jews were second-class citizens.
Quote from: viper37 on November 02, 2023, 07:03:20 PMBut ancient execution methods and ancient traditions are hardly relevant in the modern context here.
Dude. This is the Eastern Hemisphere. Stuff from thousands of years ago is often very relevant. The English are still mad about 1066.
Over here in the Americas we have shorter memories.
But we are not talking about things from thousands of years ago. We are talking about stuff from a hundred or so years ago. Even over here memories aren't that short.
I've been thinking about more humane tactics from Israel. We all know that there are lots of things they should have done, but didn't, but right now that doesn't matter.
The level of violence inflicted on Israel demands a strong and resolute response, to work as a future deterrent. So the present shenanigans where they'll try to, and probably succeed, break the government of Gaza is probably necessary. Any weaker response and it's like bathing in chum at shark fest, everyone will want to attack them since it carries no consequences.
But then what? They'll have direct responsibility for Gaza and be force to govern it. What can they realistically do to ensure a long lasting peace? What can anyone do?
My suggestion is to do as in Kosovo, get Nato involved. Have Nato ensure the security of Gaza, let Nato patrol the streets. Sure, they don't have the legitimacy in the eyes of the Arab world perhaps, but nothing western short of the SS would be acceptable from Arab world anyhow, so that doesn't really matter. Have Nato guarantee democracy and rule of law, so that even if some extremists win they can't completely take over as happened with Hamas.
If Nato were to ensure security then the UN can come in with aid, but make it with Israeli surveillance so that the aid goes to where it's supposed to go instead of to terrorists. Have the UN run schools and TV stations to get away from the "Exterminate all the jews"-indoctrination that Palestine kids have to sit through. At the same time Nato has legitimacy in Israel that the UN does not.
Support all reasonable secular political movements and have elections in order to build political parties. Let the elected bodies take over government part by part over decades until they can run it on their own.
Give the same offer to the West Bank. Perhaps shove it down their throats.
Do not, under any circumstances, allow any Jewish settlements in Palestinian territories.
I give this chain of events 0% probability of happening, but I have a hard time seeing anything very different from this succeeding in the long run.
Edit: Of course ethnic cleansing would also solve the problem and would perhaps be the best solution for Israel, but I don't think anyone really wants that and it's not very nice. Would make Israel a pariah state for a generation, but that might perhaps be acceptable. Anyhow, that would be a horrible solution and I hope it doesn't come to that.
There is no country in NATO who wants their citizens patrolling the streets of Gaza.
Yeah, I know, but if this mess is to be solved someone needs to step up. Pay the African Union or something, some external, non UN, actor is probably needed.
Iran might do it.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2023, 03:05:38 AMThere is no country in NATO who wants their citizens patrolling the streets of Gaza.
we're having enough troubles patrolling our own streets
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 03, 2023, 04:51:43 AMQuote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2023, 03:05:38 AMThere is no country in NATO who wants their citizens patrolling the streets of Gaza.
we're having enough troubles patrolling our own streets
:rolleyes:
Having western countries fix Gaza and not Haiti would send quite a message.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 03, 2023, 06:18:36 AMHaving western countries fix Gaza and not Haiti would send quite a message.
It's not like white troops moving in to pacify black Haiti would send a better message.
The short-term solution is to bring in PA security forces and administrators, which is what the people of Gaza have repeatedly expressed their preference for in polls. The PA is the enemy of Hamas and, while not chummy with Israel, at least accepts Israel's right to exist. True, it is also corrupt, but baby steps, man.
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2023, 07:30:52 AMThe short-term solution is to bring in PA security forces and administrators, which is what the people of Gaza have repeatedly expressed their preference for in polls. The PA is the enemy of Hamas and, while not chummy with Israel, at least accepts Israel's right to exist. True, it is also corrupt, but baby steps, man.
Several days ago the PA spokeperson said they will absolutely not take over the management of Gaza without some international guarantees for a long term plan for Palestine. Which I understand to a big degree, but on the other hand is a bit of a dick move since they want the whole world to feel sympathy for their own people, while they say "F it I ain't helping them unless I get what I want".
Quote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2023, 12:22:25 AMQuote from: viper37 on November 02, 2023, 08:06:42 PMQuote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2023, 07:56:17 PMI think it's important to put this act of resistance context: Oppression of Jews.
Which oppression of Jews? How are Jews oppressed here?
Hamas committed a terror act, it's not oppression, it's a terror act.
Let us look at the definition here:
prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.
That fits the definition of the Palestinians. But certainly not the Jewish population of Israel.
Unless you are telling me the government of Israel is applying a prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control of its own people? I have seen no evidence of that, but you are welcome to submit your evidence.
No, they threw rocks at Jews before the Zionists came. When Jews were second-class citizens.
Jews started killing Arabs the moment they came. If we go back in time to see who was killing who first, we'll turn the clock back to before Abraham.
Quote from: viper37 on November 03, 2023, 08:46:18 AMQuote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2023, 12:22:25 AMQuote from: viper37 on November 02, 2023, 08:06:42 PMQuote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2023, 07:56:17 PMI think it's important to put this act of resistance context: Oppression of Jews.
Which oppression of Jews? How are Jews oppressed here?
Hamas committed a terror act, it's not oppression, it's a terror act.
Let us look at the definition here:
prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.
That fits the definition of the Palestinians. But certainly not the Jewish population of Israel.
Unless you are telling me the government of Israel is applying a prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control of its own people? I have seen no evidence of that, but you are welcome to submit your evidence.
No, they threw rocks at Jews before the Zionists came. When Jews were second-class citizens.
Jews started killing Arabs the moment they came. If we go back in time to see who was killing who first, we'll turn the clock back to before Abraham.
Are you really this dumb?
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2023, 12:27:26 AMBut we are not talking about things from thousands of years ago. We are talking about stuff from a hundred or so years ago. Even over here memories aren't that short.
I honestly don't know what Raz is talking about. Jews and Muslims have been killing one another and been intermittently at peace since the arrival of Islam.
If we are tracing a line at the beginning of the Zionist movement, then both groups have been committing atrocities against one another in the area.
If the line is the creation of Israel, there's a clear demarcation that the country is expelling and killing Palestinians in the hope that even more will leave the area by themselves and this process as accelerated recently.
Heck, we even had eye witness testimony on this forum for a while who reveled in saying that Palestinian wells should be poisoned. But Siegebreaker was the oppressed one according to Raz? It does not really make sense to me.
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2023, 07:30:52 AMThe short-term solution is to bring in PA security forces and administrators, which is what the people of Gaza have repeatedly expressed their preference for in polls. The PA is the enemy of Hamas and, while not chummy with Israel, at least accepts Israel's right to exist. True, it is also corrupt, but baby steps, man.
There's not much of a PA security force left. Netenyahu's policy has to been to weaken them to the point of collapse. I don't think they can hold Gaza, or hold anything. They can't maintain security in what's left of the WB.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2023, 08:55:15 AMAre you really this dumb?
I have to adjust my discourse to whomever I am talking to.
Settlers are throwing rocks at Palestinians, among other things, forcing them to protect themselves with grids. The goal is to force them to leave their homes.
The IDF is shooting unarmed civilians in the streets and the soldiers are congratulated by politicians.
This is Russia-like level of terror.
You approve of that, I don't.
It's that simple.
You use the justification that 200 hundred years ago, some Muslims threw rocks at some Jewish families to justify this. I disagree.
Call me dumb if you want. Not even the Holocaust justify that kind of behavior.
Quote from: viper37 on November 03, 2023, 09:00:49 AMI honestly don't know what Raz is talking about. Jews and Muslims have been killing one another and been intermittently at peace since the arrival of Islam.
I honestly don't know what you are talking about. Islam and Judaism peacefully co-existed in the Middle East from the founding of Islam to the early 20th Century. A ew riots and whatnot occurred, for sure, but the peace between the two religions wasn't "intermittent," the violence was.
The Zionist movement created both Jewish nationalism and Palestinian nationalism. Conflicts over land only strengthened to impact of nationalist chauvinism in both camps. That's what flavors all relations between them today.
Quote from: viper37 on November 03, 2023, 09:00:49 AMI honestly don't know what Raz is talking about.
Clearly. For centuries Jews were 2nd class citizens in the Arab world. This is how Palestinians saw them. When Jews from Europe started arriving (legally purchasing land), they were less inclined to be brow-beaten minority.
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2023, 08:18:13 AMSeveral days ago the PA spokeperson said they will absolutely not take over the management of Gaza without some international guarantees for a long term plan for Palestine. Which I understand to a big degree, but on the other hand is a bit of a dick move since they want the whole world to feel sympathy for their own people, while they say "F it I ain't helping them unless I get what I want".
I think they literally couldn't and would just be forced out again by Hamas like in the Gaza civil war. And also it speaks to the dual position of Israel under Netanyahu. The PA has been hugely undermined in the West Bank where it rules, as a blind eye was turned to settlers and settler violence (I mean we're seeing fights between radical settlers and IDF troops right now in the middle of a war for Israel). Hamas on the other hand were broadly left alone to run Gaza because they'd been "contained". A consequence of that is that the PA is not available as a force that can help in Gaza. It has neither the credibility/legitimacy or the power to do it even if there was the will.
I think this is where the medium/long term points to a two state solution because I think one option for Israel would be to regionalise Gaza and Palestine. If it is part of a broader regional coalition primarily directed against Iran as Saudi has been trying to create with Egypt and the Gulf states then I think it is possible to see those other regional powers helping to secure Palestine against Iran - but there's no way they'd be willing to do it for further occupation or settlement by Israel. And it is more challenging because those countries still have public opinion which is responding, so I think Bahrain have withdrawn their ambassador and closed the Israeli consulate which is the first of the Abraham Accords countries to do that.
Obviously that is not possible with the Israeli far-right in the coalition and with Netanyahu as PM. I think until an Israeli centre is re-created, focused on the national interest and mad up of Likud, Yesh Atid, Blue & White etc it's not possible, the political logic in Israel is preserving one man's (or one family's) power.
And I think that does trap Israel in military action without a long-term strategy of what they're trying to achieve in Gaza. That is a problem because it's really difficult to say x is proportionate because we don't know the military or political obective it is intended to achieve.
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2023, 09:25:09 AMQuote from: viper37 on November 03, 2023, 09:00:49 AMI honestly don't know what Raz is talking about. Jews and Muslims have been killing one another and been intermittently at peace since the arrival of Islam.
I honestly don't know what you are talking about. Islam and Judaism peacefully co-existed in the Middle East from the founding of Islam to the early 20th Century. A ew riots and whatnot occurred, for sure, but the peace between the two religions wasn't "intermittent," the violence was.
The Zionist movement created both Jewish nationalism and Palestinian nationalism. Conflicts over land only strengthened to impact of nationalist chauvinism in both camps. That's what flavors all relations between them today.
Raz just told me the Jews were second class citizens and were constantly beaten, thrown rocks at. Accord your tunes.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2023, 09:50:06 AMQuote from: viper37 on November 03, 2023, 09:00:49 AMI honestly don't know what Raz is talking about.
Clearly. For centuries Jews were 2nd class citizens in the Arab world. This is how Palestinians saw them. When Jews from Europe started arriving (legally purchasing land), they were less inclined to be brow-beaten minority.
There was no such thing as a very distinct Palestinian identity until after WWII.
Even now, most Israelis don't even want to recognize Palestinians as a seperate nation from other Arabs.
As late as Golda Meir the Israeli government official position was to not recognize the Palestinian people as a nation.
As for being 2nd class citizens, this is debatable. They had dhimi status. Same legal rights and protection, but special tax. Occasional pogroms, unfortunately. It's a large territory and large time span, from Spain to Iraq, as far south as Yemen, even as far east as Pakistan, from the beginning of Muhammad rise to 2023.
EDIT: corrected to include the correct geographical and time reference.
PA is likely the only viable administrator of Gaza and they would need to stand up a police / security force. They could not do this in a vacuum--Gaza would need a permanent IDF military force the same as the West Bank. The only reason the PA can continue to administer the parts of the WB it administers is because the IDF protects it, similar would be needed for Gaza.
That in and of itself is not a viable end state, so things would need to develop from there--so far this hasn't happened in the WB and would be unlikely to happen in Gaza without a change in Israeli policies.
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. Some third party, trusted by Israel and accepted by PA needs to go in and back up some kind of sensibleish Palestinian government. IDF can do the security, but they are not acceptable to the Palestinians, so it would be preferable if someone else did it. This presumably needs to be done for decades in concert with anti-corruption work and economic development.
At the same time the settlements have to stop and preferably reverse, it's a mark of shame for Israel that they are allowed to continue.
Quote from: Threviel on November 03, 2023, 12:04:35 PMYeah, that's what I'm thinking. Some third party, trusted by Israel and accepted by PA needs to go in and back up some kind of sensibleish Palestinian government. IDF can do the security, but they are not acceptable to the Palestinians, so it would be preferable if someone else did it. This presumably needs to be done for decades in concert with anti-corruption work and economic development.
At the same time the settlements have to stop and preferably reverse, it's a mark of shame for Israel that they are allowed to continue.
Who in their right mind would sign up to have their people police Hamas (or their terrorist successors) while making sure not to end up being cover for either their or the Israelis breaks of whatever truce is agreed?
Let's face it this will either end by the Palestinians in their entirety truly accepting that they are never ever getting the territory of Israel back, or Israel collapsing and its inhabitants butchered and kicked out wholesale.
Another option would be to hold immediate elections in Gaza. If Hamas wins the people of Gaza have voted for total war with Israel and it legitimizes virtually anything the Israelis want to do in response. If the PA wins, that delegitimizes Israeli occupation.
That genocide comment by the UN special raporteur is a massive black mark on the institution itself. I'm not talking about the various commissions that are peopled by appointees from Sudan or Azerbaijan which Otto has been referring to, but the professional staff. Anyone working for the UN with a shred of decency should resign in protest.
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2023, 12:20:22 PMQuote from: Threviel on November 03, 2023, 12:04:35 PMYeah, that's what I'm thinking. Some third party, trusted by Israel and accepted by PA needs to go in and back up some kind of sensibleish Palestinian government. IDF can do the security, but they are not acceptable to the Palestinians, so it would be preferable if someone else did it. This presumably needs to be done for decades in concert with anti-corruption work and economic development.
At the same time the settlements have to stop and preferably reverse, it's a mark of shame for Israel that they are allowed to continue.
Who in their right mind would sign up to have their people police Hamas (or their terrorist successors) while making sure not to end up being cover for either their or the Israelis breaks of whatever truce is agreed?
Let's face it this will either end by the Palestinians in their entirety truly accepting that they are never ever getting the territory of Israel back, or Israel collapsing and its inhabitants butchered and kicked out wholesale.
Peacekeeping forces have worked before. Remember the Balkans--and Serbs are basically as low tier humans as Palestinians, and have largely behaved.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2023, 12:32:22 PMAnother option would be to hold immediate elections in Gaza. If Hamas wins the people of Gaza have voted for total war with Israel and it legitimizes virtually anything the Israelis want to do in response. If the PA wins, that delegitimizes Israeli occupation.
That genocide comment by the UN special raporteur is a massive black mark on the institution itself. I'm not talking about the various commissions that are peopled by appointees from Sudan or Azerbaijan which Otto has been referring to, but the professional staff. Anyone working for the UN with a shred of decency should resign in protest.
Who holds the elections?
That's the point, if it's a fight to the death Israel might as well clear out from the river to the sea and dare anyone to do anything about it.
That's what I hope our politicians would want to stop, full scale ethnic cleansing. And the way to do that is peacekeeping operations. But not from the UN, because they are incompetent and run by the crap nations of the world and very biased against Israel.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2023, 12:32:22 PMAnother option would be to hold immediate elections in Gaza. If Hamas wins the people of Gaza have voted for total war with Israel and it legitimizes virtually anything the Israelis want to do in response. If the PA wins, that delegitimizes Israeli occupation.
I like this one.
As for the long term. I wonder how hard it would be for the IDF to destroy every vehicle currently operating in Gaza (except perhaps a few ambulances monitored by the RC or other trusted third party).
Future raids would be much easier to tackle if Hamas could only advance at a walk.
Immediate elections in a field of rubble, when there are no options, and a foreign invader is attacking.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 03, 2023, 03:31:02 PMImmediate elections in a field of rubble, when there are no options, and a foreign invader is attacking.
It's a recipe for success, assuredly. And a very realistic proposition.
Quote from: Threviel on November 03, 2023, 01:03:12 PMThat's the point, if it's a fight to the death Israel might as well clear out from the river to the sea and dare anyone to do anything about it.
That's what I hope our politicians would want to stop, full scale ethnic cleansing. And the way to do that is peacekeeping operations. But not from the UN, because they are incompetent and run by the crap nations of the world and very biased against Israel.
They're very biased against Israel, Russia, Serbia, Pakistan, Turkey, the United States, Iraq (under Saddam), and so many others... and yet, it has worked in may instances.
Or maybe, just maybe, some countries aren't the Angels they think they are? Maybe it's possible that you can be, as a nation, even as an individual, both victim and agressor?
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 03, 2023, 03:31:02 PMImmediate elections in a field of rubble, when there are no options, and a foreign invader is attacking.
Also I don't think the result should matter. Civilians don't have rights to protection because of what they support politically or how they voted, but because they're civilians. It wouldn't legitimise whatever Israel did - I don't think it would legitimise anything.
Yi's idea makes me think of the old "unsure if serious" meme.
The IDF released what they claim to be photos of Hamas plans for the defense of Jabalia the "refugee camp" (why are these towns and cities are still called that?) where there was a recent outrage at Israel daring to bomb it. It was allegedly captured in a raid. Helps putting Josq's "terror bombing" into perspective I guess: https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1720510542769434822?s=20
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2023, 05:47:38 PMThe IDF released what they claim to be photos of Hamas plans for the defense of Jabalia the "refugee camp" (why are these towns and cities are still called that?) where there was a recent outrage at Israel daring to bomb it. It was allegedly captured in a raid. Helps putting Josq's "terror bombing" into perspective I guess: https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1720510542769434822?s=20
So, cities/refugee camps that get regularly bombed are now defended, so it's ok to bombed them, I guess?
I suppose it makes Hamas strategy of shooting rockets at civilian population center a valid one too? Most citizens of Israel are conscript, so I suppose we could invoked some twisted logic to make them military targets too?
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2023, 05:47:38 PMThe IDF released what they claim to be photos of Hamas plans for the defense of Jabalia the "refugee camp" (why are these towns and cities are still called that?) where there was a recent outrage at Israel daring to bomb it. It was allegedly captured in a raid. Helps putting Josq's "terror bombing" into perspective I guess: https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1720510542769434822?s=20
For every example where they prove Hamas was hiding something there's a bunch more where silence remains.
Even in cases of Hamas using human shields as cover for something nefarious, it's still valid to expect some care be taken to minimise civilian casualties.
Quote from: viper37 on November 03, 2023, 09:00:49 AMQuote from: Valmy on November 03, 2023, 12:27:26 AMBut we are not talking about things from thousands of years ago. We are talking about stuff from a hundred or so years ago. Even over here memories aren't that short.
I honestly don't know what Raz is talking about. Jews and Muslims have been killing one another and been intermittently at peace since the arrival of Islam.
Well Jews were second class citizens whose symbolic subjugation to Islam was important. That isn't to say they couldn't thrive in Islamic societies, they could and did and usually did better than in a place like Germany or Spain, but that is just the case.
QuoteIf we are tracing a line at the beginning of the Zionist movement, then both groups have been committing atrocities against one another in the area.
Ok but there were a lot of Palestinians who were Jews. The response to the Zionists moving in from Europe and Yemen was to launch pogroms against their own Jewish people and drive them into the arms to settlers. Which is a pattern we saw with Jewish populations all over North Africa and West Asia. These people had been peacefully living as second class citizens in subjugation for centuries what the hell had they done to deserve to be persecuted and driven from their homes besides being Jews? Well their descendants are like half the Israelis. That completely unjustified and horrendous persecution of a population who had been nothing but productive and loyal, despite being treated poorly, is what drove Israeli strength and Israeli hatred and distrust for the Arabs.
For whatever reason this persecution and ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Jews is never mentioned. Never credited. Completely irrelevant despite being key to whole tragedy of the situation. And that really distinguishes this situation and why it is more like a Balkan ethnic struggle than really a settle colonizer thing.
QuoteIf the line is the creation of Israel, there's a clear demarcation that the country is expelling and killing Palestinians in the hope that even more will leave the area by themselves and this process as accelerated recently.
Of course. That is exactly how these kinds of ethnic conflicts work. Both sides hate and fear each other. They would prefer the other side be gone.
QuoteHeck, we even had eye witness testimony on this forum for a while who reveled in saying that Palestinian wells should be poisoned. But Siegebreaker was the oppressed one according to Raz? It does not really make sense to me.
I don't know Siege's particular situation, but it isn't like the Palestinians are over there saying how much they just want to give the Israelis hugs and kisses.
My conclusion here is that both sides are driven to madness by a toxic combination of religious fanaticism and a recent history of brutal persecution and trauma. Neither can be trusted and neither really want to live in productive peace with the other. And my whole thought on my country's involvement is that we shouldn't be on anybody's side as nobody is on our side.
I mean even look at the catch phrase of the Palestinian supporters: Palestine should be free from the river to the sea. Sounds like nationalist bullshit to me. Sounds like ethnic cleansing to me. The people who live in the area should be free from the river to the sea, regardless of whether or not they fit some national box.
So until I have confidence that somebody over there actually wants peace and justice I would prefer we did nothing. Because until then, whomever we support will betray us as the Israelis have done time and time again. They just ignore what the USA wants and does whatever. And from what I can tell the Palestinians have basically treated their benefactors, back when they had them, the same way. We are just tools to be used in their little fight, not real partners.
Quote from: Josquius on November 03, 2023, 06:48:47 PMQuote from: Tamas on November 03, 2023, 05:47:38 PMThe IDF released what they claim to be photos of Hamas plans for the defense of Jabalia the "refugee camp" (why are these towns and cities are still called that?) where there was a recent outrage at Israel daring to bomb it. It was allegedly captured in a raid. Helps putting Josq's "terror bombing" into perspective I guess: https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1720510542769434822?s=20
For every example where they prove Hamas was hiding something there's a bunch more where silence remains.
Even in cases of Hamas using human shields as cover for something nefarious, it's still valid to expect some care be taken to minimise civilian casualties.
Well Hamas WANTS there to be lots of civilian casualties. That complicates things.
That isn't a normal thing armies trying to minimize civilian casualties have to face.
Quote from: Threviel on November 03, 2023, 03:10:37 AMYeah, I know, but if this mess is to be solved someone needs to step up. Pay the African Union or something, some external, non UN, actor is probably needed.
Or there is the Tom Clancy solution: Bring in the Vatican and the Swiss Guards.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 03, 2023, 07:56:50 PMQuote from: Threviel on November 03, 2023, 03:10:37 AMYeah, I know, but if this mess is to be solved someone needs to step up. Pay the African Union or something, some external, non UN, actor is probably needed.
Or there is the Tom Clancy solution: Bring in the Vatican and the Swiss Guards.
Yup, if the crusades have show us anything it's that when Catholics show up in the holy land violence and death decreases :contract: :P
I hear the Knights of St John are still around looking for a country. Perhaps they could take over the running of Gaza. What could possibly go wrong... :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2023, 07:38:18 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 03, 2023, 09:00:49 AMQuote from: Valmy on November 03, 2023, 12:27:26 AMBut we are not talking about things from thousands of years ago. We are talking about stuff from a hundred or so years ago. Even over here memories aren't that short.
I honestly don't know what Raz is talking about. Jews and Muslims have been killing one another and been intermittently at peace since the arrival of Islam.
Well Jews were second class citizens whose symbolic subjugation to Islam was important. That isn't to say they couldn't thrive in Islamic societies, they could and did and usually did better than in a place like Germany or Spain, but that is just the case.
Non Muslims to be more precise. Christians had the same status as Jews in Islamic countries.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2023, 07:38:18 PMQuoteIf we are tracing a line at the beginning of the Zionist movement, then both groups have been committing atrocities against one another in the area.
Ok but there were a lot of Palestinians who were Jews. The response to the Zionists moving in from Europe and Yemen was to launch pogroms against their own Jewish people and drive them into the arms to settlers. Which is a pattern we saw with Jewish populations all over North Africa and West Asia. These people had been peacefully living as second class citizens in subjugation for centuries what the hell had they done to deserve to be persecuted and driven from their homes besides being Jews? Well their descendants are like half the Israelis. That completely unjustified and horrendous persecution of a population who had been nothing but productive and loyal, despite being treated poorly, is what drove Israeli strength and Israeli hatred and distrust for the Arabs.
For whatever reason this persecution and ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Jews is never mentioned. Never credited. Completely irrelevant despite being key to whole tragedy of the situation. And that really distinguishes this situation and why it is more like a Balkan ethnic struggle than really a settle colonizer thing.
Well, yes, of course, at the time of the creation of Israel many Palestinians were Jews, and the UN was expecting a lot of immigration coming from Europe due to persecution, which is why they allocated more lands to the Jewish population in their partition plan.
The Arabs rejected it, the Jewish population rebelled against the British to declare independence on their own terms and expel the Palestian Arabs from their lands.
And then, yes, the Arab countries stupidly expelled their Jewish population and created even more problems in the region. But it's no big deal according to Raz, because everyone lose their homes and their possession once in a while, so why should we bother or lament that, right? But I totally agree with you. These people had done nothing to deserve this.
As for talking about it, I've seen it talked often enough, but not by the pro-Palestinian side, obviously. No more than the pro Israeli side talks about the Nakba.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2023, 07:38:18 PMQuoteHeck, we even had eye witness testimony on this forum for a while who reveled in saying that Palestinian wells should be poisoned. But Siegebreaker was the oppressed one according to Raz? It does not really make sense to me.
I don't know Siege's particular situation, but it isn't like the Palestinians are over there saying how much they just want to give the Israelis hugs and kisses.
Israel's parliament has passed a law denying naturalisation to Palestinians from the occupied West Bank or Gaza married to Israeli citizens, forcing thousands of Palestinian families to either emigrate or live apart. Mar 11, 2022It's hard to kiss in this situation.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2023, 07:38:18 PMMy conclusion here is that both sides are driven to madness by a toxic combination of religious fanaticism and a recent history of brutal persecution and trauma. Neither can be trusted and neither really want to live in productive peace with the other. And my whole thought on my country's involvement is that we shouldn't be on anybody's side as nobody is on our side.
I mean even look at the catch phrase of the Palestinian supporters: Palestine should be free from the river to the sea. Sounds like nationalist bullshit to me. Sounds like ethnic cleansing to me. The people who live in the area should be free from the river to the sea, regardless of whether or not they fit some national box.
So until I have confidence that somebody over there actually wants peace and justice I would prefer we did nothing. Because until then, whomever we support will betray us as the Israelis have done time and time again. They just ignore what the USA wants and does whatever. And from what I can tell the Palestinians have basically treated their benefactors, back when they had them, the same way. We are just tools to be used in their little fight, not real partners.
That particular catch phrase is new to me. It's the first year I'm hearing it, and I've watched a lot of these protests. They're usually much worst...
I'm not taking any sides, but Israel's plan is kinda transparent here. They've been at it for years in the West Bank and the recent attacks gave them a pretext to accelerate the timetable in Gaza. Within 2 years they will have expelled the Palestinian from there. Netanyahu has never hidden his opposition to any kind of Palestinian state in the West Bank and this is what the Israeli population voted for. IDF soldiers are shooting unarmed Palestinians or those who resists and they are protecting the settlers who are attacking the Palestinians.
The only side I'm on is the side of civilians victims of the terror inflicted by both side. A teenager shot in the back of the head by soldiers while giving assistance to an injured man is a war crime. To see the government lauding these soldiers as heroes is sickening. To see soldiers defending the settlers attacking the Palestinians is more than disturbing.
Hamas was allowed to rearm itself. Money kept flowing into Gaza. Warning signs were given. But Bibi was busy elsewhere. This is criminal negligence. Because he was too busy attacking civilians to steal their homes. This should never have happened. Hamas committed the atrocities, this government gave them the matches and the gasoline. 1400 Israeli citizens needlessly died. And many Palestinians are getting killed, and many more will die before this conflict is over.
When even the US is telling Israel to go easy, it's because they're really going heavy handed. Afaik, I don't think this has even happened publicly before.
Quote from: HVC on November 03, 2023, 08:06:48 PMQuote from: Tonitrus on November 03, 2023, 07:56:50 PMQuote from: Threviel on November 03, 2023, 03:10:37 AMYeah, I know, but if this mess is to be solved someone needs to step up. Pay the African Union or something, some external, non UN, actor is probably needed.
Or there is the Tom Clancy solution: Bring in the Vatican and the Swiss Guards.
Yup, if the crusades have show us anything it's that when Catholics show up in the holy land violence and death decreases :contract: :P
According to so many Christians, their religion spread by the Good word alone, never by the sword, unlike Islam, that evil religion.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2023, 07:38:48 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 03, 2023, 06:48:47 PMQuote from: Tamas on November 03, 2023, 05:47:38 PMThe IDF released what they claim to be photos of Hamas plans for the defense of Jabalia the "refugee camp" (why are these towns and cities are still called that?) where there was a recent outrage at Israel daring to bomb it. It was allegedly captured in a raid. Helps putting Josq's "terror bombing" into perspective I guess: https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1720510542769434822?s=20
For every example where they prove Hamas was hiding something there's a bunch more where silence remains.
Even in cases of Hamas using human shields as cover for something nefarious, it's still valid to expect some care be taken to minimise civilian casualties.
Well Hamas WANTS there to be lots of civilian casualties. That complicates things.
That isn't a normal thing armies trying to minimize civilian casualties have to face.
They're actively trying to keep civilians in the north and preventing them to flee. Not that it really matters, Israel bombs everywhere anyway. It just makes a difference for the ground forces, they'll get to happily shoot more civilians and claim they were enemy combatants.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 03, 2023, 03:49:35 PMAlso I don't think the result should matter. Civilians don't have rights to protection because of what they support politically or how they voted, but because they're civilians. It wouldn't legitimise whatever Israel did - I don't think it would legitimise anything.
And yet objections were raised during the Vietnam War of bombing villages who's inhabitants were not even communist supporters. And you yourself have pointed out the civilians killed by Hamas were from traditionally Labor voting, Old Israel, presumably peace favoring communities. I could be hashing up this recollection so please correct me if I'm wrong. Certainly many here have said that part of their objection to the deaths of Gaza civilians is they are living under coercion. If these objections have standing then surely so do their obverses: that killing civilians who positively desire death and destruction are less objectionable victims of collateral damage.
Quote from: Josquius on November 03, 2023, 06:48:47 PMFor every example where they prove Hamas was hiding something there's a bunch more where silence remains.
What conclusion would you like us to draw from this?
Quote from: Barrister on November 02, 2023, 11:50:26 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2023, 11:05:42 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 02, 2023, 10:55:47 AMCalling people names is a good thing, embrace it.
It's retarded.
So I have these adorable twin nephews who are literally one on a million kids - they are identical twins, and they both have Down Syndrome.
So on the one hand I think it's stupid. "Retarded" was intended as a replacement for older terms like "mongoloid". And watching my nephews, they are absolutely developmentally delayed, or retarded. They're 8 but have the language ability of a 2 year old. So "retarded" is intellectually a perfectly acceptable word.
But on the other hand - come on. It's used as an insult, as a slur. I'm sure you used it that way on the schoolyard - I know I did.
My sister-in-law (the twins mother) has posted on social media about it being the "R" word, trying to encourage people not to use it. Personally, while I don't treat it like the n-word (you'll notice I did spell it out), it's not a word I'd otherwise use.
oops
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2023, 08:40:06 PMAnd yet objections were raised during the Vietnam War of bombing villages who's inhabitants were not even communist supporters.
Yeah my view is the problem is with bombing villages.
QuoteAnd you yourself have pointed out the civilians killed by Hamas were from traditionally Labor voting, Old Israel, presumably peace favoring communities. I could be hashing up this recollection so please correct me if I'm wrong.
I did but I'm sorry - that wasn't what I meant. I'm absolutely not saying that makes any difference to the Hamas attack or that one group of civilians are fair(er) game but another aren't.
What I meant about that the psychological shock was increased by an attack on core Israeli territory since 1948 - not rockets, not settlements but old school Zionist kibbutz that have been around as long as there's been an Israel. For Israelis I think that attack and shock lands differently.
In addition it directly hits the fault-line in Israeli society over the last few years. The IDF were deployed in the West Bank, defending the supporeters of a far-right annexationist coalition; the people who were killed (and who waited hours for the IDF to get there) were opposition voters and people living in the Israel that's been protesting in their hundreds of thousands against that government. That's partly why cabinet ministers are being chased out of hospitals and Netanyahu - I believe still - hasn't really spoken to the families of victims.
Edit: And again - latest poll has over 75% of Israelis wanting Netanyahu gone because of this.
QuoteCertainly many here have said that part of their objection to the deaths of Gaza civilians is they are living under coercion. If these objections have standing then surely so do their obverses: that killing civilians who positively desire death and destruction are less objectionable victims of collateral damage.
I don't think that's right in either of those cases and I think it's the wrong reason to have an objection. More generally I think the issue is less around whether victims of collateral damage are objectionable - I think they all are. Rather I think it's more about what is the military aim of whatever action, have you taken whatever steps you can to avoid harming civilians (obviously still needing to meet the military aim) and is that proportionate. I don't think that changes based on the moral character of the civilians - they're civilians. Obviously it also depends on what tech you've got.
A Hamas communication post in a refugee camp that is a guy with a radio and will unavoidably kill many civilians seems to me to be not proportionate; if it is instead actually a really important comms hub for an entire part of Gaza with key figures then it might be. You'll still face the criticism (rightly) but you should be able to point to the military goal.
It might make you sympathise more with people in Gaza but I don't think it's the right basis for objecting because civilians are civilians whatever regime they live under.
I concur, Sheilbh, especially when they're children. The children of Hamas supporters are no less deserving of protection than the children of those who abhor Hamas.
Quote from: Jacob on November 04, 2023, 01:34:32 AMI concur, Sheilbh, especially when they're children. The children of Hamas supporters are no less deserving of protection than the children of those who abhor Hamas.
Then how about when they reach the age of maturity, or when they reach the age to bear arms? If children are special then everyone else is less special.
Shelf: I think your position sounds like a lawyer's brief. The law and justice are not always the same thing.
QuoteWell Hamas WANTS there to be lots of civilian casualties. That complicates things.
That isn't a normal thing armies trying to minimize civilian casualties have to face.
Yes?
I don't see anyone disagreeing Hamas are bad here.
The issue is more Israel jumping in the mud with them.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2023, 08:52:10 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 03, 2023, 06:48:47 PMFor every example where they prove Hamas was hiding something there's a bunch more where silence remains.
What conclusion would you like us to draw from this?
Pretty clear no?
There's some occasions where Israel bombed a civilian area and they have the excuse to (arguably, mostly, sort of) legitimise it that Hamas was hiding there. And boy do they push these occasions.
On the other hand there's lots of occasions where they bombed a civilian area and have no legitimate excuse. Best stay quiet on those ones.
Quote from: Josquius on November 04, 2023, 03:30:47 AMPretty clear no?
There's some occasions where Israel bombed a civilian area and they have the excuse to (arguably, mostly, sort of) legitimise it that Hamas was hiding there. And boy do they push these occasions.
On the other hand there's lots of occasions where they bombed a civilian area and have no legitimate excuse. Best stay quiet on those ones.
I see. So you think they have perfect intelligence on where military asset are located. And they should be willing to divulge the sources and methods of that intelligence to the world.
FYI, based on what I've read about targeting drones in Afghanistan, I assume they have imperfect intelligence. That they're using a probabilistic system. Get the probability high enough and you fire for effect.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2023, 04:08:34 AMQuote from: Josquius on November 04, 2023, 03:30:47 AMPretty clear no?
There's some occasions where Israel bombed a civilian area and they have the excuse to (arguably, mostly, sort of) legitimise it that Hamas was hiding there. And boy do they push these occasions.
On the other hand there's lots of occasions where they bombed a civilian area and have no legitimate excuse. Best stay quiet on those ones.
I see. So you think they have perfect intelligence on where military asset are located. And they should be willing to divulge the sources and methods of that intelligence to the world.
Quoi?
I have no idea how you got to this.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2023, 02:33:20 AMThen how about when they reach the age of maturity, or when they reach the age to bear arms? If children are special then everyone else is less special.
Shelf: I think your position sounds like a lawyer's brief. The law and justice are not always the same thing.
Maybe - it's always a risk. Although I'm not really a big believer in law or justice :ph34r:
I don't think justice is the right frame. For a start I think following your argument, civilians could be legitimate targets. I mean what would be the objetion to Russian barrel bombing in Syria, for example. It's an argument you could even use to defend Hamas' attack - Israel is a conscript society after all.
I don't think it's about justice or morality but just trying to place some restraint or some pause into executing a war.
Can restraint be in doubt?
Last time I checked there had been more bombing sorties than civilian deaths were claimed (by Hamas no less).
So either the pilots are terrible at finding and hitting targets or they are indeed trying to minimize civilian casualties.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 04, 2023, 09:52:12 AMCan restraint be in doubt?
Last time I checked there had been more bombing sorties than civilian deaths were claimed (by Hamas no less).
So either the pilots are terrible are finding and hitting targets or they are indeed trying to minimize civilian casualties.
More bombs dropped than victims killed?! TERRO BOMBING!
Quote from: Iormlund on November 04, 2023, 09:52:12 AMCan restraint be in doubt?
Last time I checked there had been more bombing sorties than civilian deaths were claimed (by Hamas no less).
So either the pilots are terrible at finding and hitting targets or they are indeed trying to minimize civilian casualties.
Sorry I'm mixing things up.
I think when you're looking at - or planning - a military action you should have a goal, take what steps you can to avoid civilian casualties and then judge of that together whether that is proportionate to your military objective. In my view that's not necessarily about justice or morality, but about a restraint or fetter when the power of weapons is always increasing and (arguably) the basis for targeting civilians has also increased (less so now in the West) with conscription, with industrial production, with logistics etc.
I'm not saying that you necessarily need to be "restrained" in conducting a war. I think it can be right to have very aggressive objectives or goals, but that you still take those steps of minimising civilian casualties and making sure they are proportionate to those objectives. I don't think it's about judging whether those civilians are somehow culpable enough to not care.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2023, 02:33:20 AMThen how about when they reach the age of maturity, or when they reach the age to bear arms? If children are special then everyone else is less special.
I don't understand the point you're making?
Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2023, 09:55:17 AMQuote from: Iormlund on November 04, 2023, 09:52:12 AMCan restraint be in doubt?
Last time I checked there had been more bombing sorties than civilian deaths were claimed (by Hamas no less).
So either the pilots are terrible are finding and hitting targets or they are indeed trying to minimize civilian casualties.
More bombs dropped than victims killed?! TERRO BOMBING!
No consideration this might not be true?
Even the most conservative estimates have 7000+ Palestinian dead.
And don't forget how bombs tend to work. I believe even in ww2 it was typical for fewer deaths than bombs.
Israel does not have a strategic bomber force and I guess that they don't have very many firebombs for bombing civilians.
If they wanted to I guess they could target civilian crowds with artillery and aim for civilian gathering places.
A missile splinter from a Gaza missile hit a crowd at a hospital and killed lots of people. If it had been a dedicated splinter artillery shell or missile I expect that far more would have died.
In short, Israel is very much holding back their destructive power. Had they wanted to terror bomb or to do a genocide the deaths would have been at least an order of magnitude higher.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 04, 2023, 11:11:13 AMSorry I'm mixing things up.
I think when you're looking at - or planning - a military action you should have a goal, take what steps you can to avoid civilian casualties and then judge of that together whether that is proportionate to your military objective. In my view that's not necessarily about justice or morality, but about a restraint or fetter when the power of weapons is always increasing and (arguably) the basis for targeting civilians has also increased (less so now in the West) with conscription, with industrial production, with logistics etc.
I'm not saying that you necessarily need to be "restrained" in conducting a war. I think it can be right to have very aggressive objectives or goals, but that you still take those steps of minimising civilian casualties and making sure they are proportionate to those objectives. I don't think it's about judging whether those civilians are somehow culpable enough to not care.
I think that you are entirely correct. "Disproportionate" might be a vague term, but a measure would be "if they were doing this to us, would I consider it proportionate?" One of the tragedies of war is that the considerations of what is proportionate get more and more distorted as the decision-makers get more inured to the consequences of their actions. "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic."
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 04, 2023, 09:39:18 AMMaybe - it's always a risk. Although I'm not really a big believer in law or justice :ph34r:
I don't think justice is the right frame. For a start I think following your argument, civilians could be legitimate targets. I mean what would be the objetion to Russian barrel bombing in Syria, for example. It's an argument you could even use to defend Hamas' attack - Israel is a conscript society after all.
I don't think it's about justice or morality but just trying to place some restraint or some pause into executing a war.
The objection to barrel bombing Syrian shepherds is the same as exists already. No purposeful targeting of civilians.
Thinking back I may not have made my position clear. I am not advocating putting every Palestinian who voted for Hamas against a wall and shooting them.
What I am saying is targeting decisions will always involve a trade off between competing principles: vengence/deterence and protecting the innocent. Justice for the dead Israeli ravers vs. justice for the helpless Palestinian pawns. And that the extent to which those helpless pawns are not pawns factors in to the implicit moral algorithm about whether a particular strike is moral or immoral, civilized or savage.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2023, 08:40:06 PMCertainly many here have said that part of their objection to the deaths of Gaza civilians is they are living under coercion. If these objections have standing then surely so do their obverses: that killing civilians who positively desire death and destruction are less objectionable victims of collateral damage.
1) can you insure that the elections would be fair for everyone
2) given that fair elections are usually anonymous, how do you discriminate Hamas supporters from non Hamas supporters with a fair election
3) assuming both preceding conditions are met, and you still undergo massive bombardment because 53% of voters decided to vote for Hams after a period of indiscriminate bombing and attacks toward civilians, how is that not collective punishment, something forbiddent by the Geneva conventions?
4) if collective punishment for the Israeli toward the Palestinians, should it be allowed for the Palestinians?
5) If #4 is justified, how does the cycle of violence end?
Quote from: Threviel on November 04, 2023, 01:28:01 PMIsrael does not have a strategic bomber force and I guess that they don't have very many firebombs for bombing civilians.
If they wanted to I guess they could target civilian crowds with artillery and aim for civilian gathering places.
A missile splinter from a Gaza missile hit a crowd at a hospital and killed lots of people. If it had been a dedicated splinter artillery shell or missile I expect that far more would have died.
In short, Israel is very much holding back their destructive power. Had they wanted to terror bomb or to do a genocide the deaths would have been at least an order of magnitude higher.
"if israel really wanted to they could kill a lot more people" is a pretty shit defence of killing civilians.
Like. The US could wipe out the world if it wanted to. Does that mean it has a freebie of wiping out a country or two?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2023, 02:26:08 PMJustice for the dead Israeli ravers vs. justice for the helpless Palestinian pawns.
But justice implies you seek out the guilty party and you either bring them to justice (if at all possible) or you execute them.
Think of the Munich massacre of Olympian athletes. Do you of anyone personally who wept for the terrorists who were executed following this massacre?
I wasn't born then, let alone reading the newspapers ;) but do you recall anyone asking Israel to be moderate in its retaliation?
Did Nixon called Golda Meir and told her to go easy on the Palestinians? Talked her into a truce?
I can't find anything about that in Wikipedia, but sometimes, the records are incomplete...
Or maybe, a simpler explanation: back then, despite the hawkish nature of the government, they didn't uselessly bomb civilians and concentrated on real military targets. The goals where to eliminate the terrorist organization, not scare the civilians. The civilians that were killed were in close proximity to the military objectives.
Quote from: viper37 on November 04, 2023, 03:00:52 PM1) can you insure that the elections would be fair for everyone
2) given that fair elections are usually anonymous, how do you discriminate Hamas supporters from non Hamas supporters with a fair election
3) assuming both preceding conditions are met, and you still undergo massive bombardment because 53% of voters decided to vote for Hams after a period of indiscriminate bombing and attacks toward civilians, how is that not collective punishment, something forbiddent by the Geneva conventions?
4) if collective punishment for the Israeli toward the Palestinians, should it be allowed for the Palestinians?
5) If #4 is justified, how does the cycle of violence end?
1) I can't.
2) I don't.
3) I do that by proceeding under the same assumptions that have governed warfare in the West for centuries: once a polity makes a decision to engage in war, the repercussions of waging war fall on all inhabitants equally.
I would judge Hamas on the same terms i judge Israel. I would ask those who support Hamas, or those who think the magical formula of "kill Hamas good, kill a Palestinian civilian evil" (like those idiot Canadian politicians who signed that letter) to do the same.
4) Of course.
5) I don't know. How does it end if collective punishment is forbidden?
Quote from: Threviel on November 04, 2023, 01:28:01 PMIsrael does not have a strategic bomber force and I guess that they don't have very many firebombs for bombing civilians.
If they wanted to I guess they could target civilian crowds with artillery and aim for civilian gathering places.
A missile splinter from a Gaza missile hit a crowd at a hospital and killed lots of people. If it had been a dedicated splinter artillery shell or missile I expect that far more would have died.
In short, Israel is very much holding back their destructive power. Had they wanted to terror bomb or to do a genocide the deaths would have been at least an order of magnitude higher.
Israel could use their nuclear arsenal on Iran too, since they have it. Why don't they do it?
I don't think having capabilities is enough.
You're missing one or two steps.
Quote from: viper37 on November 04, 2023, 03:14:09 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2023, 02:26:08 PMJustice for the dead Israeli ravers vs. justice for the helpless Palestinian pawns.
But justice implies you seek out the guilty party and you either bring them to justice (if at all possible) or you execute them.
Think of the Munich massacre of Olympian athletes. Do you of anyone personally who wept for the terrorists who were executed following this massacre?
I wasn't born then, let alone reading the newspapers ;) but do you recall anyone asking Israel to be moderate in its retaliation?
Did Nixon called Golda Meir and told her to go easy on the Palestinians? Talked her into a truce?
I can't find anything about that in Wikipedia, but sometimes, the records are incomplete...
Or maybe, a simpler explanation: back then, despite the hawkish nature of the government, they didn't uselessly bomb civilians and concentrated on real military targets. The goals where to eliminate the terrorist organization, not scare the civilians. The civilians that were killed were in close proximity to the military objectives.
I can think of plenty of terrorist sympathizers who were outraged at the Israelis and who vowed vengeance. I can think of one prominent British politician who thought showing up at a memorial for them was the right thing to do.
Or the explanation that is not as simple as your, but which I find consistent with the information available to me, is the Munich attackers didn't choose to shield themselves from retribution behind civilians.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2023, 02:33:20 AMThen how about when they reach the age of maturity, or when they reach the age to bear arms? If children are special then everyone else is less special.
It's like the mafia. You kill the children of your enemies so they don't grow up planning their vengeance.
It's good code for the IDF to have.
But not so good if they want to claim to be the most moral army of the world. (https://www.jpost.com/opinion/reality-check-the-most-moral-army-in-the-world-really-549906)
Though choice to make.
Quote from: viper37 on November 04, 2023, 03:25:14 PMIt's good code for the IDF to have.
It's not one I would support. You have to make your own choices.
Quote from: Josquius on November 04, 2023, 03:10:43 PM"if israel really wanted to they could kill a lot more people" is a pretty shit defence of killing civilians.
Like. The US could wipe out the world if it wanted to. Does that mean it has a freebie of wiping out a country or two?
That's not the charge Threviel is rebutting. He is rebutting the charge that Israel is killing all the civilians it can. I.e. the terror bombing charge.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2023, 03:26:23 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 04, 2023, 03:25:14 PMIt's good code for the IDF to have.
It's not one I would support. You have to make your own choices.
But you just said the IDF should keep disregarding civilian life in Gaza if they vote for Hamas.
They've already begun to bomb them. The results would be tainted.
It's kinda like asking the Germans if they would side with the NSDAP after the Russians have entered Berlin.
I'm not sure what would the results would be under such conditions, under such destruction, with a menacing enemy at their door. They may have hated the Nazis at this point but felt they were the better option to protect them against the Russians?
Anyway. There's zero chance of being able to organize elections in there right now.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2023, 03:18:36 PM3) I do that by proceeding under the same assumptions that have governed warfare in the West for centuries: once a polity makes a decision to engage in war, the repercussions of waging war fall on all inhabitants equally.
I have no idea what you mean by this. Obviously other traditions around the world have their own teaching on this. But modern ideas around the rules and limits of war are very strongly incluenced from Medieval thought, from theology.
I don't understand what you mean by this because it's the literal opposite of my understanding of centuries of Western thought on war (not least because I think the identification of people with polity is very modern).
QuoteI would judge Hamas on the same terms i judge Israel. I would ask those who support Hamas, or those who think the magical formula of "kill Hamas good, kill a Palestinian civilian evil" (like those idiot Canadian politicians who signed that letter) to do the same.
Hamas are terrorists. You can't judge a military by the same standard as you do a terrorist organisation with a state. It's like judging a business by the standards of a cartel. They are different in nature - that's what defines them.
Of course if you don't think Hamas are terrorists - and I get there is argument about that (see the row over the BBC's language) - but I think they are and I think that's how they have to be understood.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2023, 03:35:39 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 04, 2023, 03:10:43 PM"if israel really wanted to they could kill a lot more people" is a pretty shit defence of killing civilians.
Like. The US could wipe out the world if it wanted to. Does that mean it has a freebie of wiping out a country or two?
That's not the charge Threviel is rebutting. He is rebutting the charge that Israel is killing all the civilians it can. I.e. the terror bombing charge.
Terror bombing does not mean you kill all the civilians you can. The allies did not want to kill all the civilians of Dresden. The Americans did not want to kill all the civilians of Japan with their firebombing, nor those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the nukes.
You confuse terror bombing with genocide.
Quote from: viper37 on November 04, 2023, 03:43:51 PMBut you just said the IDF should keep disregarding civilian life in Gaza if they vote for Hamas.
I did not say this. I said it changes the targeting algorithm. I'll give you a concrete example.
IDF has intelligence (let's say perfect knowledge to keep it simple) that a certain building has 3 fighters, one high value target (a leader) and 4 civilians. Do you shoot or not shoot?
Now let's say the same set up, all 4 civilians are rabid Hamas supporters. Shoot or don't? I say their support should raise the shoot value.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 04, 2023, 03:44:57 PMI have no idea what you mean by this. Obviously other traditions around the world have their own teaching on this. But modern ideas around the rules and limits of war are very strongly incluenced from Medieval thought, from theology.
I don't understand what you mean by this because it's the literal opposite of my understanding of centuries of Western thought on war (not least because I think the identification of people with polity is very modern).
During WWI the UK blockaded Germany. This had the effect of causing hunger in the entire German population. After WWI the Allies imposed reparations on Germany. All Germans had to pay this.
QuoteHamas are terrorists. You can't judge a military by the same standard as you do a terrorist organisation with a state. It's like judging a business by the standards of a cartel. They are different in nature - that's what defines them.
Of course if you don't think Hamas are terrorists - and I get there is argument about that (see the row over the BBC's language) - but I think they are and I think that's how they have to be understood.
Why can't/shouldn't/don't you judge a military by the same standards as a terrorist organization? Judging them by the same standards is what gets us to the conclusion that they are terrorists?
Quote from: viper37 on November 04, 2023, 03:46:13 PMTerror bombing does not mean you kill all the civilians you can. The allies did not want to kill all the civilians of Dresden. The Americans did not want to kill all the civilians of Japan with their firebombing, nor those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the nukes.
You confuse terror bombing with genocide.
I see no evidence that the Allies did not kill every possible civilian they could at Dresden. Nor do I see any evidence that the US didn't kill every civilian it could in Japan.
I do not confuse the two. Terror bombing means you keep killing until the enemy surrenders. Genocide means you keep killing after they surrender.
Quote from: viper37 on November 04, 2023, 03:46:13 PMTerror bombing does not mean you kill all the civilians you can. The allies did not want to kill all the civilians of Dresden. The Americans did not want to kill all the civilians of Japan with their firebombing, nor those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the nukes.
So totally separate but, Arthur Harris:
QuoteThe aim of Bomber Command should be unambiguously and publicly stated. That aim is the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers and the disruption of civilised life throughout Germany. [...] The destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale.
Having said that there was unease about this at the time which almost immediately dominated in the post-war. Churchill's victory in Europe speech listed all the campaigns of the war - except for Bomber Command (which was an enormous focus of British resources and the only way Britain was hitting Germany in Europe for at least three years). For that reason Arthur Harris turned down a peerage. He was furious for most of the rest of his life that what him and his men did became an embarassment that wasn't talked about. Similarly Bomber Command, unlike almost every other branch and campaign were not given medals. They eventually got medals in the 2010s on more of a logic that it was a very dangerous campaign and ethics aside they deserved the same recognition.
During the war I think there was a thrill in a sense of hitting Germany back for the Blitz and it was part of propaganda. But it was also controversial even then - it was perceived as stooping to the enemy's level. This is how it's necessary to fight in the 20th century - I think you get this sense in British post-war war films which very much are either knights in the sky (Battle of Britain, Dambusters) or fighting good Germans (the clean Wehrmacht, Rommel). It does not focus on the reality of the war which was actually massive and ramping up industrialisation of death (I think this is a common trait in Britain's view of its past), or even, necessarily, the war's nastiness (we weren't exposed to the Eastern Front). Another example is that the Americans, I believe, refused to do the type of night-bombing raids the British did. But even there it's perhaps complicated by American racial politics, as I believe they did that type of bombing in Japan.
This is as I thik to an extent the logic of war for the last two hundred years. War transformed from something elite and specialised to something that relied on national mobilisation in some way or other until total war. And the more it relies on national mobilisation of conscripts, industry, the home front - the more it's a people's war the more it becomes a war against peoples. As I say I don't think the thinking is new but there's been an attempt to restrain that process (particularly now some weapons like WMDs can really destroy civilian populations almost to the exclusion of a military use). And in the West especially we have reverted to war as specialised activity - arguably to help de-politicise it? :ph34r:
QuoteNow let's say the same set up, all 4 civilians are rabid Hamas supporters. Shoot or don't? I say their support should raise the shoot value.
I don't think it makes a difference. It's about the importance of the military objective which, in that case, is probably the high value target - in another case if those three fighters are actively fighting IDF forces, then it's obviously them. In either case it's the value of the military target/objective to the civilian casualties - can you reduce them and what's the likely collateral damage (for example, other buildings in the area that are likely to be impacted).
Obviously one thing we have learned from October 7 is that Israeli intelligence and knowledge of what's going on in Gaza is lower than they (or I think others) thought. So I doubt their insight is this good.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 04, 2023, 04:19:20 PMI don't think it makes a difference. It's about the importance of the military objective which, in that case, is probably the high value target - in another case if those three fighters are actively fighting IDF forces, then it's obviously them. In either case it's the value of the military target/objective to the civilian casualties - can you reduce them and what's the likely collateral damage (for example, other buildings in the area that are likely to be impacted).
Obviously one thing we have learned from October 7 is that Israeli intelligence and knowledge of what's going on in Gaza is lower than they (or I think others) thought. So I doubt their insight is this good.
It's obviously about more than just the military value, or we wouldn't even be discussing the effect on civilians.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2023, 04:23:56 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on November 04, 2023, 04:19:20 PMI don't think it makes a difference. It's about the importance of the military objective which, in that case, is probably the high value target - in another case if those three fighters are actively fighting IDF forces, then it's obviously them. In either case it's the value of the military target/objective to the civilian casualties - can you reduce them and what's the likely collateral damage (for example, other buildings in the area that are likely to be impacted).
Obviously one thing we have learned from October 7 is that Israeli intelligence and knowledge of what's going on in Gaza is lower than they (or I think others) thought. So I doubt their insight is this good.
It's obviously about more than just the military value, or we wouldn't even be discussing the effect on civilians.
The Israeli justification is based on the value of the military target in proportion to the collateral damage.
If it is anything other than a military target, then it is a war crime.
I don't see anybody claiming the Israelis are intentionally targeting non-military targets. Rather the criticism is in the proportionality analysis they are using to justify the collateral damage caused in their attacks.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2023, 05:22:07 PMThe Israeli justification is based on the value of the military target in proportion to the collateral damage.
If it is anything other than a military target, then it is a war crime.
I don't see anybody claiming the Israelis are intentionally targeting non-military targets. Rather the criticism is in the proportionality analysis they are using to justify the collateral damage caused in their attacks.
Israel will always claim it was a Hamas hot spot.
Even it we only see dead civilians, they will claim there were munitions in the ambulance.
We're supposed to take this government's word at face value.
Quote from: Josquius on November 04, 2023, 12:39:06 PMQuote from: Tamas on November 04, 2023, 09:55:17 AMQuote from: Iormlund on November 04, 2023, 09:52:12 AMCan restraint be in doubt?
Last time I checked there had been more bombing sorties than civilian deaths were claimed (by Hamas no less).
So either the pilots are terrible are finding and hitting targets or they are indeed trying to minimize civilian casualties.
More bombs dropped than victims killed?! TERRO BOMBING!
No consideration this might not be true?
Even the most conservative estimates have 7000+ Palestinian dead.
And don't forget how bombs tend to work. I believe even in ww2 it was typical for fewer deaths than bombs.
Well in WW2 massive formations of strategic bombers dropped ridiculous amounts of unguided ordinance with very poor aiming, in case of the cities with no other aim than to cause damage to civilians. You can argue whether the IAF would do that if they had strategic bombers but they don't.
And the two numbers compared are coming from opposite sources which makes it interesting for me: the IAF said 8000 bombs (they have an interest in under reporting this number) whil the 7000 deaths come from Hamas (they have an interest in over reporting this number).
But I guess it doesn't really matter. At the end of the day, all this discussion comes down to one question: does Israel have the right to wage a conventional war on Hamas? If yes, we have seen no evidence that they are going beyond that - they might, but it is simply not possible, morally, legally, or practically, to expect that Israel wage this war by throwing away their two advantages (technology and firepower) and have themselves going mano-i-mano with infantry only. Especially since civilians would still die by the droves if that was happening.
And if your opinion is that no, Israel does not have the right to wage a conventional war on Hamas then there's nothing further to discuss then.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2023, 04:14:10 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 04, 2023, 03:46:13 PMTerror bombing does not mean you kill all the civilians you can. The allies did not want to kill all the civilians of Dresden. The Americans did not want to kill all the civilians of Japan with their firebombing, nor those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the nukes.
You confuse terror bombing with genocide.
I see no evidence that the Allies did not kill every possible civilian they could at Dresden. Nor do I see any evidence that the US didn't kill every civilian it could in Japan.
I do not confuse the two. Terror bombing means you keep killing until the enemy surrenders. Genocide means you keep killing after they surrender.
Dresden had over 500 000 people. The bombing killed 25 000 people.
The goal was to inflict terror, to create a refugee problem as Sheilb pointed out in his text. Destroy the industry, kill the workers, force people to flee their homes because they fear other bombings.
Terror bombing to me means your bomb until the enemy flees the area or surrender. Israel wants Palestinians to flee the area so they don't come back. They don't want surrender, there's no one to surrender anything. Israel wants colonies.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2023, 03:55:47 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 04, 2023, 03:43:51 PMBut you just said the IDF should keep disregarding civilian life in Gaza if they vote for Hamas.
I did not say this. I said it changes the targeting algorithm. I'll give you a concrete example.
IDF has intelligence (let's say perfect knowledge to keep it simple) that a certain building has 3 fighters, one high value target (a leader) and 4 civilians. Do you shoot or not shoot?
Now let's say the same set up, all 4 civilians are rabid Hamas supporters. Shoot or don't? I say their support should raise the shoot value.
But it's not what they do.
The parameters are this way:
1 mid value target (local leader).
50 civilians.
Shoot.
Like the bombing in the refugee camp/city.
They shot an ambulance recently. They said there were terrorists onboard, and munitions hiding under children.
So... They have intel knowing precisely were some ammunition is hidden, apparently under an injured child. Let's assume it is true. The best method they found to deal with it was to lauch a missile toward the ambulance to kill the kid?
Do you think it is an efficient method of solving the problem for the long term?
Assume the Israeli government was telling the truth. There were 3 or 4 terrorists inside the ambulance hiding with a injured child and ammunition/weapons that we did not see under a gurney.
So, they killed four low-level combattants and one kid.
Now, will that kid's family blame Hamas or Israel for the death or their little angel?
Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2023, 06:10:20 PMAnd the two numbers compared are coming from opposite sources which makes it interesting for me: the IAF said 8000 bombs (they have an interest in under reporting this number) whil the 7000 deaths come from Hamas (they have an interest in over reporting this number).
Yes. the IAF bombs are so precise that each bombs only kill one person at a time. They don't even need to use snipers anymore, they just use their bombs.
Here, one bomb, one kill.
Quote from: viper37 on November 04, 2023, 06:11:22 PMDresden had over 500 000 people. The bombing killed 25 000 people.
The goal was to inflict terror, to create a refugee problem as Sheilb pointed out in his text. Destroy the industry, kill the workers, force people to flee their homes because they fear other bombings.
The other bit is forcing the Germans to defend the skies of their own country - I think in the Wages of Destruction about 40% of German industrial output is building fighters and air defence. That's resources and capacity that isn't being used on offensive weapons to hit the western allies, it's also not being used on equipment for the Eastern Front.
It was the goal as Harris says, but it was also arguably all they could do. I think the RAF did some tests and even in day bombing with good conditions less than a third of bombs hit their targets. Harris was in part responding to what he was hearing from the men which was then proven in that test. So the strategy of just leveling an area was in part adopted because it was the best they could do (and night bombing reduced losses/made it more difficult for Germany to defend against - and was what happened to the UK in the Blitz).
That's partly what I mean by some of what's proportionate shifting with technology.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 04, 2023, 06:37:50 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 04, 2023, 06:11:22 PMDresden had over 500 000 people. The bombing killed 25 000 people.
The goal was to inflict terror, to create a refugee problem as Sheilb pointed out in his text. Destroy the industry, kill the workers, force people to flee their homes because they fear other bombings.
The other bit is forcing the Germans to defend the skies of their own country - I think in the Wages of Destruction about 40% of German industrial output is building fighters and air defence. That's resources and capacity that isn't being used on offensive weapons to hit the western allies, it's also not being used on equipment for the Eastern Front.
It was the goal as Harris says, but it was also arguably all they could do. I think the RAF did some tests and even in day bombing with good conditions less than a third of bombs hit their targets. Harris was in part responding to what he was hearing from the men which was then proven in that test. So the strategy of just leveling an area was in part adopted because it was the best they could do (and night bombing reduced losses/made it more difficult for Germany to defend against - and was what happened to the UK in the Blitz).
That's partly what I mean by some of what's proportionate shifting with technology.
Good point about the defense, I forgot about that. Any resources they devoted to that they couldn't use to bomb England, obviously.
Quote from: viper37 on November 04, 2023, 06:11:22 PMDresden had over 500 000 people. The bombing killed 25 000 people.
The goal was to inflict terror, to create a refugee problem as Sheilb pointed out in his text. Destroy the industry, kill the workers, force people to flee their homes because they fear other bombings.
It's an interesting possibility, one I had not considered. Do you have other evidence to support the claim the allies killed fewer at Dresden than they were capable of? Were bombers ordered not to fly? Are there planning documents that say "we want to kill 25K and no more?"
Quote from: viper37 on November 04, 2023, 06:23:49 PMBut it's not what they do.
The parameters are this way:
1 mid value target (local leader).
50 civilians.
Shoot.
Like the bombing in the refugee camp/city.
They shot an ambulance recently. They said there were terrorists onboard, and munitions hiding under children.
So... They have intel knowing precisely were some ammunition is hidden, apparently under an injured child. Let's assume it is true. The best method they found to deal with it was to lauch a missile toward the ambulance to kill the kid?
Do you think it is an efficient method of solving the problem for the long term?
Assume the Israeli government was telling the truth. There were 3 or 4 terrorists inside the ambulance hiding with a injured child and ammunition/weapons that we did not see under a gurney.
So, they killed four low-level combattants and one kid.
Now, will that kid's family blame Hamas or Israel for the death or their little angel?
I'm confused what you want me to respond to, 1 wounded kid and 3 or 4 fighters in an ambulance or 1 fighter and 50 mixed civilians.
I'm also confused as to whether you are presenting the 50 +1 scenario as fact or hypothetical.
And yes, I think a hellfire is an excellent way of taking out an ambulance with 1 kid and 3 or 4 fighters, if you want to take it out.
Quote from: viper37 on November 04, 2023, 06:34:10 PMQuote from: Tamas on November 04, 2023, 06:10:20 PMAnd the two numbers compared are coming from opposite sources which makes it interesting for me: the IAF said 8000 bombs (they have an interest in under reporting this number) whil the 7000 deaths come from Hamas (they have an interest in over reporting this number).
Yes. the IAF bombs are so precise that each bombs only kill one person at a time. They don't even need to use snipers anymore, they just use their bombs.
Here, one bomb, one kill.
My point which I foolishly thought would be obvious is that unless Hamas cooked their numbers to make the IAF look better, the numbers don't seem to indicate a particular focus on targetting civilians.
Meanwhile latest London protest accused Starmer and the BBC with genocide, so we are nearly building toward some sort of a violence.
I am sure Bibi is glued to the BBC to learn whether Starmer forbids him to continue, but still.
First time I've woken up since the war began and there has not been a single new post. Are we talked out? :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2023, 09:04:49 AMFirst time I've woken up since the war began and there has not been a single new post. Are we talked out? :hmm:
I think we've all come to an agreement, and there is no more need to discuss anything.
Quote from: DGuller on November 05, 2023, 10:08:34 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2023, 09:04:49 AMFirst time I've woken up since the war began and there has not been a single new post. Are we talked out? :hmm:
I think we've all come to an agreement, and there is no more need to discuss anything.
If us, unattached people with no material stake or threat in this can so easily set aside our differences, I wonder why this conflict has taken so many decades on the ground.
Veep: thought about it, and while I still dispute whether allied strategic bombing was intended to kill as many civilians as possible, I also think it's irrelevant to the overall point. Israel *could* still be trying to "just" make them all flee to Egypt so it would still be a nefarious act.
Quote from: Tamas on November 05, 2023, 12:02:59 AMQuote from: viper37 on November 04, 2023, 06:34:10 PMQuote from: Tamas on November 04, 2023, 06:10:20 PMAnd the two numbers compared are coming from opposite sources which makes it interesting for me: the IAF said 8000 bombs (they have an interest in under reporting this number) whil the 7000 deaths come from Hamas (they have an interest in over reporting this number).
Yes. the IAF bombs are so precise that each bombs only kill one person at a time. They don't even need to use snipers anymore, they just use their bombs.
Here, one bomb, one kill.
My point which I foolishly thought would be obvious is that unless Hamas cooked their numbers to make the IAF look better, the numbers don't seem to indicate a particular focus on targetting civilians.
They're also destroying the infrastructure to create a refugee problem.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2023, 08:20:32 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 04, 2023, 06:23:49 PMBut it's not what they do.
The parameters are this way:
1 mid value target (local leader).
50 civilians.
Shoot.
Like the bombing in the refugee camp/city.
They shot an ambulance recently. They said there were terrorists onboard, and munitions hiding under children.
So... They have intel knowing precisely were some ammunition is hidden, apparently under an injured child. Let's assume it is true. The best method they found to deal with it was to lauch a missile toward the ambulance to kill the kid?
Do you think it is an efficient method of solving the problem for the long term?
Assume the Israeli government was telling the truth. There were 3 or 4 terrorists inside the ambulance hiding with a injured child and ammunition/weapons that we did not see under a gurney.
So, they killed four low-level combattants and one kid.
Now, will that kid's family blame Hamas or Israel for the death or their little angel?
I'm confused what you want me to respond to, 1 wounded kid and 3 or 4 fighters in an ambulance or 1 fighter and 50 mixed civilians.
I'm also confused as to whether you are presenting the 50 +1 scenario as fact or hypothetical.
And yes, I think a hellfire is an excellent way of taking out an ambulance with 1 kid and 3 or 4 fighters, if you want to take it out.
You said the collateral damage had to weighed in vs the importance of the target.
Take for example the raid to eliminate Ben Laden.
Civilians were killed. But we can both agree this was an extremely important target.
There were very limited non combatant targets killed so that one high value targets and his supporting staff were eliminated.
In the case of Israel, it's 50 non combatants killed to eliminate one low level threat, a mid-tier local Hamas chief.
Or 3 or 4 Hamas gunmen presumably hiding in an ambulance. Yet, no weapons are seen in the aftermath of the explosion. Either the Hamas was very quick in removing all traces of it, or Israel was lying. But let's presume Israel was not lying.
Was it worth it, from a purely military objective? You kill 3 or 4 military combatants and create a hundred new terrorists willing to fight you to the death. I'm not sure it's worth it.
Quote from: viper37 on November 05, 2023, 11:20:01 AMIn the case of Israel, it's 50 non combatants killed to eliminate one low level threat, a mid-tier local Hamas chief.
If you want me to give you my judgement on a real world case, please link me to something that describes more fully what happened.
QuoteOr 3 or 4 Hamas gunmen presumably hiding in an ambulance. Yet, no weapons are seen in the aftermath of the explosion. Either the Hamas was very quick in removing all traces of it, or Israel was lying. But let's presume Israel was not lying.
Was it worth it, from a purely military objective? You kill 3 or 4 military combatants and create a hundred new terrorists willing to fight you to the death. I'm not sure it's worth it.
That's something you have to take up with the Israelis. I don't feel qualified to give them a lecture on the cost/benefit of killing terrorists vs. creating new ones.
I feel qualified to give them, and Hamas, a lecture (or a sermon) on proportionality. I.e. an eye for an eye. If I see Israel taking two eyes for the one they lost I will object.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2023, 08:13:15 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 04, 2023, 06:11:22 PMDresden had over 500 000 people. The bombing killed 25 000 people.
The goal was to inflict terror, to create a refugee problem as Sheilb pointed out in his text. Destroy the industry, kill the workers, force people to flee their homes because they fear other bombings.
It's an interesting possibility, one I had not considered. Do you have other evidence to support the claim the allies killed fewer at Dresden than they were capable of? Were bombers ordered not to fly? Are there planning documents that say "we want to kill 25K and no more?"
4 big raids were made, followed by 3 smaller ones. If the goal had been to kill has many civilians as possible, they would have kept at it and pillared the industrial center to achieve maximum economic disruption.
They also wanted to the Russians to see what they could do.
The goals were two fold: create a refugee problem for the Germans (they already had up to 200 000 refugees arriving thee) and showing the Soviets they would be outclassed if they had any funny ideas about the West.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2023, 11:28:50 AMQuote from: viper37 on November 05, 2023, 11:20:01 AMIn the case of Israel, it's 50 non combatants killed to eliminate one low level threat, a mid-tier local Hamas chief.
If you want me to give you my judgement on a real world case, please link me to something that describes more fully what happened.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/5/israel-hamas-war-list-of-key-events-day-30
Israel Minister Amichai Eliyahu suspended for proposing nuclear bomb in Gaza (https://www.politico.eu/article/israel-minister-amichai-eliyahu-suspend-benjamin-netanyahu-nuclear-bomb-gaza-hamas-war/)
The fallout would likely reach Israel...
Obviously, it was a metaphore. But it's indiciative of what I said before: Israel does not want the Palestinians to be in Gaza anymore.
Do you have a link that mentions one low level threat, a mid tier local Hamas chief?
Don't see him mentioned here
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/5/israel-bombs-al-maghazi-refugee-camp-killing-dozens-gaza-officials-say
or here
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67326895
Footage released by the IDF of (allegedly) a Hamas tunnel entrance by a hospital.
https://twitter.com/Heroiam_Slava/status/1721181063290982704
Quote from: Iormlund on November 05, 2023, 01:03:04 PMFootage released by the IDF of (allegedly) a Hamas tunnel entrance by a hospital.
https://twitter.com/Heroiam_Slava/status/1721181063290982704
Quatari money? Didn't we address this point before? At the very beginning of the conflict? :)
Again on why Netanyahu is unfit and unable to lead Israel in this war - addying to the now deleted late night Tweets attacking the IDF and Shin Bet for letting it happen.
I think the context is probably attempting to distract from the junior minister who said they should nuke Gaza - he has been suspended. Suspension isn't something I really know about for a minister and obviously as PM, Netanyahu could fire him. Apparently Netanyahu wanted to fire the minister but this was resisted by Ben Gvir and Netanyahu folded.
But anyway Netanyahu said that after the war he wants a probe into the link between "the refusal of military duty and motivation of Sinwar", that's Hamas' leader. The "refusal of military duty" he is referring to was the movement of air force reservists refusing to report in protest at Netanyahu's changes to the Israeli system of government, basically undermining the judiciary. In effect saying Hamas attacked because of the opposition.
Netanyahu has since done a bit of a reverse ferret on this. Benny Gantz attacked him pointing out that over 100% have reported for duty as part of the mobilisation post the 7 October attacks and adding "shirking responsibility and slandering others during wartime harms the nation. The PM must clearly and unambiguously retract his words". The Brothers and Sister in Arms (who are the protesting reservists) went further "the entire country is army (except your sons) and only you keep tearing the people apart."
Netanyahu initially basically said that's not what he said he just wanted an investigation and was just asking questions. He's now backtracked further and said that "Hamas launched a war against us because it wants to kill us all and not because of any internal argument. Hamas was wrong - and will therefore be destroyed. Only united will we win." Probably enough to keep the national unity government going but as today showed on multiple fronts - the coalition Netanyahu cares about is with the far right not a national unity government, and he will always put his political survival above literally everything else. He is just absolutely incapable to act as a national leader.
I'm just gonna leave this here for people who still insist there is no ethnic cleansing going on:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/05/world/middleeast/israel-egypt-gaza.html
Quote from: viper37 on November 05, 2023, 04:53:23 PMI'm just gonna leave this here for people who still insist there is no ethnic cleansing going on:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/05/world/middleeast/israel-egypt-gaza.html
As I say there is no way Biden explicitly rejected this idea in his tweets on calls with Netanyahu and Sisi if it hadn't been raised.
I know the paper that came out was only a discussion paper - but I think generally when a discussion paper is leaked it's either by people who think it's bad leaking it because they think it's bad, or to float a trial balloon and see what the reaction is.
It may not be what Israel are intending to do but I think it's definitely been under discussion - I believe I also read a piece on the Saudis possibly being open to it and thinking Egypt could be pressured into supporting it as they're in financial trouble so a big Gulf bailout could help. I think Saudi have reversed on that as popular opinion would not accept it.
I'm leaning on the trial balloon. See how everyone reacts to it in the West.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2023, 12:31:46 PMDon't see him mentioned here
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/5/israel-bombs-al-maghazi-refugee-camp-killing-dozens-gaza-officials-say
or here
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67326895
If the target wasn't mentioned by name, it's because it wasn't a high value target.
The last time Israel eliminated a high value Hamas target, the name of the target was published. Not just "some high value Hamas target was killed today".
Quote from: viper37 on November 05, 2023, 06:09:38 PMIf the target wasn't mentioned by name, it's because it wasn't a high value target.
The last time Israel eliminated a high value Hamas target, the name of the target was published. Not just "some high value Hamas target was killed today".
None of this tells me that Israel killed 50 civilians in exchange for 1 medium value target. So I have to wonder how you know this.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2023, 06:15:02 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 05, 2023, 06:09:38 PMIf the target wasn't mentioned by name, it's because it wasn't a high value target.
The last time Israel eliminated a high value Hamas target, the name of the target was published. Not just "some high value Hamas target was killed today".
None of this tells me that Israel killed 50 civilians in exchange for 1 medium value target. So I have to wonder how you know this.
It says in the article that 50 civilians were killed.
And unless I am mistaken, this is the second time we see such a strike in a refugee camp .
What were they targeting that was worth 50 civilians dead?
I don't remember you asking questions like this during the 2 year ISIS campaign that involved many bombings targeting ISIS leaders with nearby civilians being killed. Why is that?
Houthi fired ballistic missile was shot down by Israel outside of the earth's atmosphere. I think this is the first example of space combat in our history. Initiated by Yemen rather surprisingly.
As with drones in Ukraine, it really feels like the future is here but perhaps not in the ways or being shown by the powers we anticipated.
Quote from: viper37 on November 05, 2023, 06:21:09 PMWhat were they targeting that was worth 50 civilians dead?
Jesus fucking Christ veep. I thought you already knew. I thought you were telling me it was one mid level target.
Is this my fault? Did I misread something you wrote? Did I assume something I shouldn't have?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2023, 07:38:48 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 05, 2023, 06:21:09 PMWhat were they targeting that was worth 50 civilians dead?
Jesus fucking Christ veep. I thought you already knew. I thought you were telling me it was one mid level target.
Is this my fault? Did I misread something you wrote? Did I assume something I shouldn't have?
Jesus Yi, do I look like I know every single member of the Hamas?
If it's a high value target, it will be identified by name, as they always do.
If the US, or Israel or any big power eliminates a high value target, they name him/it.
If the USS Abraham Lincoln was sunk in an attack, the group responsible would brag about it, they wouldn't simply say they struck a "US warship".
If they strike some minor support ship, they'll say they struck a US warship, that's how it works.
If Israel doesn't bother naming who they struck beyond "Hamas regional commander", it's because it's a mid tier target.
In this latest case, Israel couldn't even say whom or what they hit.
It can't have been that significant.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 05, 2023, 07:03:04 PMI don't remember you asking questions like this during the 2 year ISIS campaign that involved many bombings targeting ISIS leaders with nearby civilians being killed. Why is that?
Did anyone here defend the actions of ISIS?
When the few, limited actions to bomb ISIS leaders by occidental countries occurred, where they in the tune of 50-60 civilians killed to 1 ISIS leader?
I remember occidental countries mostly sitting on their arse and volunteers going to fight by themselves with Kurdish troops.
But you must have been overjoyed to see Russia's intervention in Syria.
Quote from: viper37 on November 05, 2023, 07:47:56 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2023, 07:38:48 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 05, 2023, 06:21:09 PMWhat were they targeting that was worth 50 civilians dead?
Jesus fucking Christ veep. I thought you already knew. I thought you were telling me it was one mid level target.
Is this my fault? Did I misread something you wrote? Did I assume something I shouldn't have?
Jesus Yi, do I look like I know every single member of the Hamas?
If it's a high value target, it will be identified by name, as they always do.
If the US, or Israel or any big power eliminates a high value target, they name him/it.
If the USS Abraham Lincoln was sunk in an attack, the group responsible would brag about it, they wouldn't simply say they struck a "US warship".
If they strike some minor support ship, they'll say they struck a US warship, that's how it works.
If Israel doesn't bother naming who they struck beyond "Hamas regional commander", it's because it's a mid tier target.
In this latest case, Israel couldn't even say whom or what they hit.
It can't have been that significant.
And how do you know the number of non senior Hamas guys killed?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2023, 07:56:25 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 05, 2023, 07:47:56 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2023, 07:38:48 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 05, 2023, 06:21:09 PMWhat were they targeting that was worth 50 civilians dead?
Jesus fucking Christ veep. I thought you already knew. I thought you were telling me it was one mid level target.
Is this my fault? Did I misread something you wrote? Did I assume something I shouldn't have?
Jesus Yi, do I look like I know every single member of the Hamas?
If it's a high value target, it will be identified by name, as they always do.
If the US, or Israel or any big power eliminates a high value target, they name him/it.
If the USS Abraham Lincoln was sunk in an attack, the group responsible would brag about it, they wouldn't simply say they struck a "US warship".
If they strike some minor support ship, they'll say they struck a US warship, that's how it works.
If Israel doesn't bother naming who they struck beyond "Hamas regional commander", it's because it's a mid tier target.
In this latest case, Israel couldn't even say whom or what they hit.
It can't have been that significant.
And how do you know the number of non senior Hamas guys killed?
If Israel's forces can't give us an estimate of the number of combatants they kill with their strikes, it means they are engaged in indiscriminate targeting of civilians when then are so many non military casualties.
The onus is on them to prove they are attacking military worthy targets and it's important to attack at the moment, when surrounded by civilians.
That's a lot of destruction (https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/gaza-refugee-camps-israel-hamas-war-1.7018274) of high value military targets. How many high value military targets are there? What is a high military target? Is it all Hamas combatants that you would define as "high value" military target? Is it all buildings that are considered high value military targets? Are all buildings are considered to be targets because they have a rocket launcher or could have a rocket launcher?
If I'd be using a conventional army as a model, high value targets to me would high ranking officers planning and organizing attacks. People who direct units who can infiltrate Israel's territory to commit more mass murder. People who can recruit more terrorists. People who can initiate contact with other terror groups and coordinate more attacks.
Not a foot soldier who wields a AK-47 and is completely stoned.
This is a shitshow. I've met you veep, I think you're good guy, I've never seen you lying before, it breaks my heart to think of you as a liar but there's no other way I can parse this whole 50+1 exchange.
I'll have to just think this whole Gaza thing is frying people's brains, tune you out for the duration and hope you return to the veep that I knew before.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2023, 08:16:03 PMThis is a shitshow. I've met you veep, I think you're good guy, I've never seen you lying before, it breaks my heart to think of you as a liar but there's no other way I can parse this whole 50+1 exchange.
I'll have to just think this whole Gaza thing is frying people's brains, tune you out for the duration and hope you return to the veep that I knew before.
Look, I'm going by the report here. They killed about 50 people. 47 according the Al-J this week.
Last week it was 50 for one of the architect of the October 7th attacks:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/31/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-latest-news-on-gaza-conflict.html
I'm saying it's not worth it for the costs of in civilian lives. They could have waited at another moment.
There's no way they would have killed 50 Israeli-Jewish citizens to get to this guy.
Sure, he's worth killing. But at the cost of 50 civilians? Not so sure. Maybe 15 minutes later the cost would have been lessened.
I'm saying that act was deliberate to terrorize the Palestinians. You're saying it's not. We will disagree on that.
Quote from: viper37 on November 05, 2023, 08:31:04 PMMaybe 15 minutes later the cost would have been lessened.
Or maybe he would've disappeared inside a tunnel.
There's no way for us to know. Hell there's probably no way the IDF could know.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 05, 2023, 07:31:02 PMHouthi fired ballistic missile was shot down by Israel outside of the earth's atmosphere. I think this is the first example of space combat in our history. Initiated by Yemen Iran rather surprisingly.
As with drones in Ukraine, it really feels like the future is here but perhaps not in the ways or being shown by the powers we anticipated.
Fixed. :sleep:
Quote from: viper37 on November 05, 2023, 08:31:04 PMI'm saying it's not worth it for the costs of in civilian lives. They could have waited at another moment.
How do you know this?
QuoteThat's not the charge Threviel is rebutting. He is rebutting the charge that Israel is killing all the civilians it can. I.e. the terror bombing charge.
Nobody claimed Israel was killing all the civilians they can. Israel has nuclear weapons. They could glass Gaza if they wanted.
Terror bombing doesn't mean trying to kill as many civilians as you can. In theory you could conduct terror bombing without killing a single person if you can scare the population enough (a dumb extreme obviously).
Quote from: Tamas on November 04, 2023, 06:10:20 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 04, 2023, 12:39:06 PMQuote from: Tamas on November 04, 2023, 09:55:17 AMQuote from: Iormlund on November 04, 2023, 09:52:12 AMCan restraint be in doubt?
Last time I checked there had been more bombing sorties than civilian deaths were claimed (by Hamas no less).
So either the pilots are terrible are finding and hitting targets or they are indeed trying to minimize civilian casualties.
More bombs dropped than victims killed?! TERRO BOMBING!
No consideration this might not be true?
Even the most conservative estimates have 7000+ Palestinian dead.
And don't forget how bombs tend to work. I believe even in ww2 it was typical for fewer deaths than bombs.
Well in WW2 massive formations of strategic bombers dropped ridiculous amounts of unguided ordinance with very poor aiming, in case of the cities with no other aim than to cause damage to civilians. You can argue whether the IAF would do that if they had strategic bombers but they don't.
And the two numbers compared are coming from opposite sources which makes it interesting for me: the IAF said 8000 bombs (they have an interest in under reporting this number) whil the 7000 deaths come from Hamas (they have an interest in over reporting this number).
But I guess it doesn't really matter. At the end of the day, all this discussion comes down to one question: does Israel have the right to wage a conventional war on Hamas? If yes, we have seen no evidence that they are going beyond that - they might, but it is simply not possible, morally, legally, or practically, to expect that Israel wage this war by throwing away their two advantages (technology and firepower) and have themselves going mano-i-mano with infantry only. Especially since civilians would still die by the droves if that was happening.
And if your opinion is that no, Israel does not have the right to wage a conventional war on Hamas then there's nothing further to discuss then.
I don't think the 7000 was from Hamas. That was from a pretty conservative western commentator. Look to Al-Jazeera who are probably getting their numbers more from the Hamas line and I see at least 10k being reported.
Israel have the 'right' to fight a conventional war against Hamas.... but there we're getting into the Life of Brian I want to be a woman scene. Its a pretty academic right as fighting a conventional war against Hamas just isn't possible. They're not setup as a conventional army.
They're a terrorist group/local mob/sui generis on those lines.
Israel have the right to try to kill hamas members... but do they have the right to kill hundreds of innocent civilians to do this?
Quote from: Threviel on November 06, 2023, 02:33:14 AMQuote from: viper37 on November 05, 2023, 08:31:04 PMI'm saying it's not worth it for the costs of in civilian lives. They could have waited at another moment.
How do you know this?
Knowing has nothing to do with Viper having that opinion.
Quote from: Josquius on November 06, 2023, 06:46:43 AMQuoteThat's not the charge Threviel is rebutting. He is rebutting the charge that Israel is killing all the civilians it can. I.e. the terror bombing charge.
Nobody claimed Israel was killing all the civilians they can. Israel has nuclear weapons. They could glass Gaza if they wanted.
Terror bombing doesn't mean trying to kill as many civilians as you can. In theory you could conduct terror bombing without killing a single person if you can scare the population enough (a dumb extreme obviously).
We should start by defining terror bombing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing#Terror_bombing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing#Terror_bombing)
QuoteTerror bombing is an emotive term used for aerial attacks planned to weaken or break enemy morale.[5] Use of the term to refer to aerial attacks implies the attacks are criminal according to the law of war,[6] or if within the laws of war are nevertheless a moral crime.
So, if we go by what wiki says it's objectively not terror bombing. The purpose of the attacks is not to break the enemy morale, it's to kill enemies. Motive matters and all that.
Reading further, from the perspective of the Gazans the bombings can be described as terror bombings. Even if the bombings are legal, which I have argued
1, or illegal which others have argued, they might nevertheless be a moral crime.
In conclusion: The current bombings of Gaza can be described as terror bombings, but it is an emotionally laden term very much giving away the bias of the user.
I guess future historians will give a verdict down the road. I would not use the term right now since it's so obviously loaded and biased.
1. They might of course be illegal, or most probably sometimes illegal, but we cannot know that now. Like most wars it's a horrible shit show where even good guys sometimes make horrible mistakes, and IDF isn't exactly a innocent white knight right now.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2023, 03:35:39 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 04, 2023, 03:10:43 PM"if israel really wanted to they could kill a lot more people" is a pretty shit defence of killing civilians.
Like. The US could wipe out the world if it wanted to. Does that mean it has a freebie of wiping out a country or two?
That's not the charge Threviel is rebutting. He is rebutting the charge that Israel is killing all the civilians it can. I.e. the terror bombing charge.
I don't actually remember what the point of my diatribe was. Presumably something along the line of: 7000 deaths, which is a highly unreliable number, is very very low for the level of bombing done. So few civilian deaths in this kind of conflict with this intensity is proof in and of itself that the IDF is showing great restraint for the circumstances.
If they had been bombing willy-nilly, ignoring civilians, the death toll would have been far far larger. If they had been actively targeting civilians the deaths would have been 6 digits now.
So sort of an argument that it's a horrible war, lots of unnecessary deaths. But if I were a civilian living in a murderous state that just committed an absolutely horrible terror crime against a far stronger neighbour then IDF would probably be my preferred enemy. Had it been Russia or Pakistan or perhaps even the US the response would probably have been bloodier, if nothing else at least due the effect of combat history and doctrine. As a civilian you at least have a chance when the IDF come knocking.
Quote from: Josquius on November 06, 2023, 06:46:43 AMIsrael have the right to try to kill hamas members... but do they have the right to kill hundreds of innocent civilians to do this?
Legally? Absolutely.
Hamas removes the protected status of any civilians they use a human shields.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 06, 2023, 08:51:25 AMQuote from: Josquius on November 06, 2023, 06:46:43 AMIsrael have the right to try to kill hamas members... but do they have the right to kill hundreds of innocent civilians to do this?
Legally? Absolutely.
Hamas removes the protected status of any civilians they use a human shields.
That doesn't sound right. So terorrists decide to use you as a human shield... And you've lost your protected status as a result of this?
I can see the argument if the civilians are willingly sheltering combatants but when it's not their choice?
Quote from: Josquius on November 06, 2023, 08:53:38 AMQuote from: Iormlund on November 06, 2023, 08:51:25 AMQuote from: Josquius on November 06, 2023, 06:46:43 AMIsrael have the right to try to kill hamas members... but do they have the right to kill hundreds of innocent civilians to do this?
Legally? Absolutely.
Hamas removes the protected status of any civilians they use a human shields.
That doesn't sound right. So terorrists decide to use you as a human shield... And you've lost your protected status as a result of this?
I can see the argument if the civilians are willingly sheltering combatants but when it's not their choice?
AFAIK armed forces who are terrorists don't get any special free pass in war.
It seems there's more concern growing in Washington. Story in the NYT about an Israeli request (and previous American support) for assault rifles - in particular growing concern that these may actually be provided to settlers and borderline paramilitary civilian militias. A week or two ago Ben Gvir posted a photo of himself handing out asssault rifles to civilians at a political event which helped prompt the concerns.
It's worth pointing out that there has been an upsurge in settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. Obviously this is wrong on its own but from an Israeli perspective it means that, again, a lot of IDF forces are required in the West Bank to either - as best they can - restrain settlers or protect them after they've attacked Palestinians. It's not helpful when Israel is describing itself as at war in Gaza that so much resource is being taken up elsewhere. While the GOP may not care (and may even consider it a model) I can understand American concern that their military aid for Israel is ending up in the hands of civilian paramilitaries associated with extremist parties in Israel - I mean Ben Gvir was literally part of groups the US considers terrorists and was in the circles that shot Rabin. So the risk of him handing out US aid to his supporters is one I imagine the US absolutely wants ruled out.
Also US sources in the Washington Post growing increasingly concerned at the number of civilian casualties in Gaza. Apparently they are confident there is a process in place for Israeli forces to assess strikes - to work out if it is proportionate. But they're also noting that "the Israeli calculus about acceptable levels of civilian casualties was clearly different from that of the United States".
This feels like the point where recent Israeli campaigns in Gaza have normally end. There's criticism/a little bit of concern from the US, protests in Europe are causing problems for governments there and the US/Western Arab allies are very unhappy. At this point, normally all of that is brought to bear (particularly by the US) to restrain/stop Israel's campaign. Here, though, Israel is saying they're not finished or going to stop so it feels like we're heading into new territory.
Quote from: Josquius on November 06, 2023, 08:53:38 AMQuote from: Iormlund on November 06, 2023, 08:51:25 AMQuote from: Josquius on November 06, 2023, 06:46:43 AMIsrael have the right to try to kill hamas members... but do they have the right to kill hundreds of innocent civilians to do this?
Legally? Absolutely.
Hamas removes the protected status of any civilians they use a human shields.
That doesn't sound right. So terorrists decide to use you as a human shield... And you've lost your protected status as a result of this?
First and foremost Hamas/Gaza is a government at war. They may also be terrorists, but in the eyes of international law they are a warring party. This is a war, not a police action.
Civilians used as human shields do not lose their protection under the eyes of the law. The responsibility to keep them safe lies with the party endangering them. In this case a civilian family forced by Gazans to stand on a weapons cache is endangered by the Gazans and IDF is within its legal right to shoot at the cache. In this example Gaza breaks international law.
Otherwise we risk a future where civilians will be used as a tactical resource by extremist regimes. The earlier silly example of strapping babies to combatants for example illustrates the point.
The international laws on war are designed to protect civilians, in that protection there are built in systems to not make it advantageous to use civilians as human shields. Using human shields is not a cheat code to become invulnerable, it cannot be, because that makes dragging civilians into war zones a military tactic.
Hamas strategy is based on external observers put blame on IDF for every civilian dying when, probably, the overwhelming lions share of that blame ought to fall on the government that endangered the civilians; Gaza.
Also: International law is a series of treaties (what the Canadians call the "Geneva suggestions" among them) that countries have, or have not signed. Presumably Gaza have signed very few, if any, so I don't actually know how the laws affect them. I don't think they care and I don't think very many outside of Gaza care either.
Quote from: Josquius on November 06, 2023, 08:53:38 AMQuote from: Iormlund on November 06, 2023, 08:51:25 AMQuote from: Josquius on November 06, 2023, 06:46:43 AMIsrael have the right to try to kill hamas members... but do they have the right to kill hundreds of innocent civilians to do this?
Legally? Absolutely.
Hamas removes the protected status of any civilians they use a human shields.
That doesn't sound right. So terorrists decide to use you as a human shield... And you've lost your protected status as a result of this?
I can see the argument if the civilians are willingly sheltering combatants but when it's not their choice?
Once there's a legitimate military target, the only obligation of the attacking party is to keep Proportionality.
But that is really murky, since as outsiders we cannot know the value of the targets to the war effort.
I can see how the Israelis would think that bagging a guy who was instrumental in the incursion was worth dozens of civilian deaths (since thousands have died as a result in both sides). But if he was just a pawn, then not so much.
Quote from: Josquius on November 06, 2023, 08:53:38 AMI can see the argument if the civilians are willingly sheltering combatants but when it's not their choice?
Shelf says it doesn't matter. Civilian means civilian.
Which I think is right.
But also from a purely practical perspective - how in the world is the IDF or any other military supposed to do these mood boards of individual civilian sentiment? At best I can't see that there'd be really any basis to assess whether or not x civilians who may die are willingly sheltering combatants or Hamas supporters, so you'd just be introducing an element of randomness. At worst you're taking intelligence and military resource in a war away from the actual military objectives to - I don't know - analyse video of cvilians or workinng out if they've got a social media profile to decide if they're good civilians or bad civilians.
Treat all civilians the same: identify what the military objective is, take all steps you can (without undermining that objective) to avoid civilian casualties and then determine if the loss of civilian life is proportionate to the value of the military objective. I can't see how else you approach it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2023, 10:13:24 AMTreat all civilians the same: identify what the military objective is, take all steps you can (without undermining that objective) to avoid civilian casualties and then determine if the loss of civilian life is proportionate to the value of the military objective. I can't see how else you approach it.
How does one arrive at a determination of proportionality?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2023, 10:16:20 AMHow does one arrive at a determination of proportionality?
My understanding is it's a core principle of the rules of war so all militaries will have a process for doing this - from the Washington Post reporting it's clear the IDF and US have a different standard on this. Ultimately it's a bit touchy-feely - you'd have to assign some form of weight or value to the military benefit of the strike and similar to civilian casualties or other impact on civilians.
But I think the process itself is helpful. I think there is value in forcing a military to actually quantify on their own terms the benefit of a strike. "It would make things a bit easier" is probably unlikely to justify many, if any, civilian deaths compared with "it's critical". My view is the weight of civilian casualties or impact should be consistent - so whatever enemy or context you're fighting, civilians are treated the same (to avoid having your thumbs on the scale).
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2023, 10:28:08 AMMy understanding is it's a core principle of the rules of war so all militaries will have a process for doing this - from the Washington Post reporting it's clear the IDF and US have a different standard on this. Ultimately it's a bit touchy-feely - you'd have to assign some form of weight or value to the military benefit of the strike and similar to civilian casualties or other impact on civilians.
But I think the process itself is helpful. I think there is value in forcing a military to actually quantify on their own terms the benefit of a strike. "It would make things a bit easier" is probably unlikely to justify many, if any, civilian deaths compared with "it's critical". My view is the weight of civilian casualties or impact should be consistent - so whatever enemy or context you're fighting, civilians are treated the same (to avoid having your thumbs on the scale).
What you are saying in effect is armed forces have an obligation in the interest of transparency to provide their targeting algorithms and then we, the public, have the right to judge their algorithms as sufficient or insufficient. In other words, "proportionality" has always been and will always remain, a political choice. And, based on the comments of several here, their judgement of proportionality involves the innocence or guilt of the civilians involved.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2023, 10:54:17 AMWhat you are saying in effect is armed forces have an obligation in the interest of transparency to provide their targeting algorithms and then we, the public, have the right to judge their algorithms as sufficient or insufficient. In other words, "proportionality" has always been and will always remain, a political choice. And, based on the comments of several here, their judgement of proportionality involves the innocence or guilt of the civilians involved.
Where have I said anything about making it public or transparency?
I don't really understand what you think I'm arguing. My point is simple civilians are not targets because of their status as civilians and there is nothing about them that militaries should be considering that make them more or less fair game. They're not because they're civilians, so instead it's really looking at the value of a military objective.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2023, 10:28:08 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2023, 10:16:20 AMHow does one arrive at a determination of proportionality?
My understanding is it's a core principle of the rules of war so all militaries will have a process for doing this - from the Washington Post reporting it's clear the IDF and US have a different standard on this.
I don't know how clear that is. The military manuals of the two countries say similar things. The US has never had to fight in this kind of situation with a heavily armed terrorist group running an autonomous region right on the border and with thousands armed militants deliberately mixed with the civilian population. Especially if you increased the size of the adversary to fit proportionally with the relative size of the US. Somehow I doubt that the US would would act with appreciably more restraint then Israel is doing now. I agree that in this conflict, the US is trying to play a calming role with Israel which is appropriate. But that is not necessarily a guide as how the US would act if faced with a similar a situation of its own.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2023, 10:54:17 AM[What you are saying in effect is armed forces have an obligation in the interest of transparency to provide their targeting algorithms and then we, the public, have the right to judge their algorithms as sufficient or insufficient. In other words, "proportionality" has always been and will always remain, a political choice.
It's proportional to the needs of military operations. So there is a big judgmental component but it is not a purely subjective inquiry.
In practice all this proportionality revolves around what you can get away with. In Vietnam the US made a lot of excess killing but were pretty constrained in terms of what they could had done to North Vietnam. Their public thought it too much and they lost the war (which I am not saying they should had started to begin with).
In WW2 entire cities were destroyed by the Allies but their public didn't mind so nobody cared or cares.
In this case here, it's a matter of perceptions and the winner will be right in the end. For some, 10k and counting deaths is an ok price to pay to remove Hamas (and further other Israeli aims). Others find these deaths outrageous but file 1400 Jews machine gunned down in the "they had it coming" cabinet. Our sensibilities are informed by our (often tribal) affiliations to the two sides, putting higher morals to this is kidding ourselves, with respect to the few exceptions.
Also I was thinking Israel should have declared in advance what they are going to do, something like they are going to destroy Hamas' powerbase in Gaza to defend themselves and will do what's necessary to achieve this, then will police the region until an internationally agreed party takes over.
But then I realised that would have only helped people like me, those who are pro-Israel but not partial to killing Muslims just for the heck of it. Nobody loudly demanding a ceasefire now or chanting "from the river to the sea" would have stayed home and have had a different outlook on the conflict, so why tie their own hands by playing with their cards on the table?
Tamas, the international rules of war regarding the requirement for proportionality were created after WWII.
Quote from: Tamas on November 06, 2023, 12:14:30 PMAlso I was thinking Israel should have declared in advance what they are going to do, something like they are going to destroy Hamas' powerbase in Gaza to defend themselves and will do what's necessary to achieve this, then will police the region until an internationally agreed party takes over.
But then I realised that would have only helped people like me, those who are pro-Israel but not partial to killing Muslims just for the heck of it. Nobody loudly demanding a ceasefire now or chanting "from the river to the sea" would have stayed home and have had a different outlook on the conflict, so why tie their own hands by playing with their cards on the table?
Militarily it would do Israel nothing good to publicly announce their overall strategy.
I just hope and trust that they have one.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2023, 11:12:38 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2023, 10:54:17 AM[What you are saying in effect is armed forces have an obligation in the interest of transparency to provide their targeting algorithms and then we, the public, have the right to judge their algorithms as sufficient or insufficient. In other words, "proportionality" has always been and will always remain, a political choice.
It's proportional to the needs of military operations. So there is a big judgmental component but it is not a purely subjective inquiry.
Agreed. There is a wide range of what might fall within the definition of proportional. From the legal precedent created in Israel that gives wide latitude so long as there is a valid military target which provides the widest interpretation, to people like Professor Byers who have a more narrow interpretation.
But all those knowledgeable about international law understand that proportional response is required.
Quote from: Tamas on November 06, 2023, 12:11:27 PMIn practice all this proportionality revolves around what you can get away with. In Vietnam the US made a lot of excess killing but were pretty constrained in terms of what they could had done to North Vietnam. Their public thought it too much and they lost the war (which I am not saying they should had started to begin with).
In practice it gives militaries with vast destructive potential a way of working out how they can use that. The principle that you shouldn't kill civilians or non-combatants or people not involved of the fight is centuries old.. Fair to say it wasn't always observed well, but until the 20th century there was a practical limitation of who had weapons and their range. If you weren't in the path or wake of any army then your experience would be very different from people living away from the conflict. In the 20th century technology changed that and how do you apply the old rules to this new world.
QuoteIn WW2 entire cities were destroyed by the Allies but their public didn't mind so nobody cared or cares.
Not sure that's true. As I say about Bomber Command more or less being written out of the narrative (it's where David Irving cut his teeth as a historian was revising that gap - before he indulged his real passion: Holocaust denialism) and still being highly contentious now. Or, say Coventry and Dresden becoming twin cities, or all the Oppenheimer discourse. I think there was caring and still is.
QuoteI don't know how clear that is. The military manuals of the two countries say similar things. The US has never had to fight in this kind of situation with a heavily armed terrorist group running an autonomous region right on the border and with thousands armed militants deliberately mixed with the civilian population. Especially if you increased the size of the adversary to fit proportionally with the relative size of the US. Somehow I doubt that the US would would act with appreciably more restraint then Israel is doing now. I agree that in this conflict, the US is trying to play a calming role with Israel which is appropriate. But that is not necessarily a guide as how the US would act if faced with a similar a situation of its own.
This is true - and as we've seen with Ukraine and briefings to the Washington Post, officials in the Pentagon are not averse to judging their allies and friends based against something the US has never/does not have to do.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2023, 11:00:53 AMWhere have I said anything about making it public or transparency?
"I think there is value in forcing a military to actually quantify on their own terms the benefit of a strike."
Though on reflection i would need an unfounded assumption to reach my conclusion. Quantification also has the benefit of removing individual biases and judgements from the equation. In other words, we don't want the 49 people who die next to the one shooter to be treated unfairly compared to the 1 guy who dies next to 6 shooters.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2023, 11:12:38 AMIt's proportional to the needs of military operations. So there is a big judgmental component but it is not a purely subjective inquiry.
A proportion is a ratio, which by definition has two defined terms. If you only define one term (military needs) then proportionality is, yeah, subjective.
Quote from: Threviel on November 06, 2023, 02:33:14 AMQuote from: viper37 on November 05, 2023, 08:31:04 PMI'm saying it's not worth it for the costs of in civilian lives. They could have waited at another moment.
How do you know this?
50 dead civilians for one life.
One of the best equipped army in the world beside the Americans.
It took them 6 days to come up with a plan to displace 2.3 million people, since they never ever even entertained the idea before and I was just imagining thing, amounting to blood libel against Israel.
Don't tell me they don't have the logistics to minimize casualties.
Had the guy been surrounded by 50 Israelis hostages, would they have taken the shot?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2023, 02:17:31 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2023, 11:12:38 AMIt's proportional to the needs of military operations. So there is a big judgmental component but it is not a purely subjective inquiry.
A proportion is a ratio, which by definition has two defined terms. If you only define one term (military needs) then proportionality is, yeah, subjective.
Proportionality is a well understood term in law, and is rarely reduced to a numerical ratio.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2023, 10:04:37 AMQuote from: Josquius on November 06, 2023, 08:53:38 AMI can see the argument if the civilians are willingly sheltering combatants but when it's not their choice?
Shelf says it doesn't matter. Civilian means civilian.
Surely that raises the question of when a civilian stops being a civilian.
Merely cheering for Hamas obviously isn't enough. And if they're armed and shooting obviously is.
But reloading guns? Cooking for soldiers?
It's a messy grey zone in the middle. Which is something Israel is keen to empathise. Just forget the kids.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 06, 2023, 01:54:46 AMQuote from: viper37 on November 05, 2023, 08:31:04 PMMaybe 15 minutes later the cost would have been lessened.
Or maybe he would've disappeared inside a tunnel.
There's no way for us to know. Hell there's probably no way the IDF could know.
They now seem to know exactly where all the tunnels are since everywhere they bomb a civilian area, they can tell us there was a tunnel entrance right there, a rocket launching site or some high value target that just got out of a tunnel. Kinda mysterious that they had no way of knowing what Hamas was doing on October 6th, but now they know everything?
I agree, there's no way for sure to know. But the IDF does not act alone, they have intelligence agencies to help them coordinate their strikes.
Unless Netanyahu still thinks they are a bunch of leftists no better than traitors and he does not trust them? Who knows.
I will maintain until the bombs have stopped that the goal of this war is to expel the Palestinians of Gaza.
And the plans to have Indian workers replace Palestinian workers (https://www.thestatesman.com/india/israel-asks-india-for-100000-workers-to-replace-palestinians-amid-gaza-war-report-1503238378.html) lends credibility to that.
Lower wages, cheap accommodations and these guys work in construction. Perfect for rebuilding New Gaza while the IDF refocus on the West Bank.
Quote from: Josquius on November 06, 2023, 02:41:41 PMSurely that raises the question of when a civilian stops being a civilian.
Merely cheering for Hamas obviously isn't enough. And if they're armed and shooting obviously is.
But reloading guns? Cooking for soldiers?
It's a messy grey zone in the middle. Which is something Israel is keen to empathise. Just forget the kids.
I agree. 1 civilian does not always equal 1 civilian.
Quote from: viper37 on November 06, 2023, 02:41:52 PMQuote from: Iormlund on November 06, 2023, 01:54:46 AMQuote from: viper37 on November 05, 2023, 08:31:04 PMMaybe 15 minutes later the cost would have been lessened.
Or maybe he would've disappeared inside a tunnel.
There's no way for us to know. Hell there's probably no way the IDF could know.
They now seem to know exactly where all the tunnels are since everywhere they bomb a civilian area, they can tell us there was a tunnel entrance right there, a rocket launching site or some high value target that just got out of a tunnel. Kinda mysterious that they had no way of knowing what Hamas was doing on October 6th, but now they know everything?
I agree, there's no way for sure to know. But the IDF does not act alone, they have intelligence agencies to help them coordinate their strikes.
Unless Netanyahu still thinks they are a bunch of leftists no better than traitors and he does not trust them? Who knows.
I will maintain until the bombs have stopped that the goal of this war is to expel the Palestinians of Gaza.
And the plans to have Indian workers replace Palestinian workers (https://www.thestatesman.com/india/israel-asks-india-for-100000-workers-to-replace-palestinians-amid-gaza-war-report-1503238378.html) lends credibility to that.
Lower wages, cheap accommodations and these guys work in construction. Perfect for rebuilding New Gaza while the IDF refocus on the West Bank.
Just what is Israels game here. It's like they're trying to keep the situation unchanged.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2023, 11:10:53 AMI don't know how clear that is. The military manuals of the two countries say similar things. The US has never had to fight in this kind of situation with a heavily armed terrorist group running an autonomous region right on the border and with thousands armed militants deliberately mixed with the civilian population. Especially if you increased the size of the adversary to fit proportionally with the relative size of the US. Somehow I doubt that the US would would act with appreciably more restraint then Israel is doing now. I agree that in this conflict, the US is trying to play a calming role with Israel which is appropriate. But that is not necessarily a guide as how the US would act if faced with a similar a situation of its own.
The military manuals say one thing.
What a military commander will do is another, especially if he was appointed for political reasons.
With everything happening in the West Bank now, I'm not sure I believe the IDF is following its manuals. Or they clearly don't have the same manuals.
No, the US never faced an exactly similar situation. In Iraq, Baghdad or Fallujah were never entirely controlled by the enemy, only portions of it. And they were never totally alone in fighting this war, nor any other.
Still the insurgents had control of 80 percent of the city (more or less), they were hiding among the civilian population or committing crimes against other part of the population and the US had zero authority over the parts controlled by these militant factions.
Yet, they didn't bomb the city to oblivion, they didn't use heavy artillery, they didn't use their tanks to level up entire neighborhoods, only places from which they were attacked.
I'm not as knowledgeable in military affairs as many here, but I know the kind of firepower the US military has, be it Air Force of Army, and I know they could have reduced a lot of the city to
rubble had they wanted to, to protect their soldiers.
It took a long while to regain control of the city and a lot of soldiers were left dead or injured. Casualties among the Iraqi army were high too.
But did it work or not? Was it a success or a failure? Who is governing Iraq now? I don't think we can call it perfect, but I would not say it is an abysmal failure the way Gaza is.
Quote from: viper37 on November 06, 2023, 02:59:34 PMNo, the US never faced an exactly similar situation. In Iraq, Baghdad or Fallujah were never entirely controlled by the enemy, only portions of it. And they were never totally alone in fighting this war, nor any other.
Still the insurgents had control of 80 percent of the city (more or less), they were hiding among the civilian population or committing crimes against other part of the population and the US had zero authority over the parts controlled by these militant factions.
Yet, they didn't bomb the city to oblivion, they didn't use heavy artillery, they didn't use their tanks to level up entire neighborhoods, only places from which they were attacked.
I'm not as knowledgeable in military affairs as many here, but I know the kind of firepower the US military has, be it Air Force of Army, and I know they could have reduced a lot of the city to
rubble had they wanted to, to protect their soldiers.
It took a long while to regain control of the city and a lot of soldiers were left dead or injured. Casualties among the Iraqi army were high too.
But did it work or not? Was it a success or a failure? Who is governing Iraq now? I don't think we can call it perfect, but I would not say it is an abysmal failure the way Gaza is.
That was over 15 years ago. So by that logic, let's wait until 2040 before writing off Gaza.
Quote from: Tamas on November 06, 2023, 12:11:27 PMIn this case here, it's a matter of perceptions and the winner will be right in the end. For some, 10k and counting deaths is an ok price to pay to remove Hamas (and further other Israeli aims). Others find these deaths outrageous but file 1400 Jews machine gunned down in the "they had it coming" cabinet. Our sensibilities are informed by our (often tribal) affiliations to the two sides, putting higher morals to this is kidding ourselves, with respect to the few exceptions.
I was just reading about this, this morning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre
From approximately 18:00 on 16 September to 08:00 on 18 September, the Lebanese Forces carried out the massacre while the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had the Palestinian camp surrounded.[5][6][7][8] The IDF had ordered the militia to clear out the fighters of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from Sabra and Shatila as part of a larger Israeli maneuver into western Beirut. As the massacre unfolded, the IDF received reports of atrocities being committed, but did not take any action to stop it.[9] In essence what you are saying is the same as OvB. As long as the victims are Muslims, it is justified to kill them?
At least 20-30 000 will be dead before the war is over, the rest deported. Something that we expect of Russia. Killing Ukrainians, deporting others. It was done to Tchetchens before, but we did not care, they were just Muslims.
And why? Because one fucking idiot wanted to kill more Mulslims in the West Banks instead of listening to warnings.
No fucking defense. The enemy was right there. Not hidden. The money kept flowing, he was aware of it. "Oh, it's for rebuilding Gaza". Ffs. How many millions does it take to build cheap apartments with no running water? Don't they have accountants in Israel?
Why keep the border unguarded? Why was it so important to defend the murderers of the West Bank? Ah, yes, they vote for him and his coalition.
1400 people died because their leader was an incompetent moron who let it happen. They were left to fend for themselves against a brutal sadistic opponent known to hate Jews. Because the priorities of this government was to kill defenseless Palestinians in the occupied territories to steal more lands.
How the fuck do you leave a border unguarded when a territory is controlled by Hamas and you know they are rearming thanks to the money you let flow in the place?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2023, 02:17:31 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2023, 11:12:38 AMIt's proportional to the needs of military operations. So there is a big judgmental component but it is not a purely subjective inquiry.
A proportion is a ratio, which by definition has two defined terms. If you only define one term (military needs) then proportionality is, yeah, subjective.
That's true but it is subjective judgment tied to an objective reality as opposed to just a free form subjectivity.
To make it more concrete in context, if Israel is pursuing the military objectives of: (a) denying Hamas access to supplies and materials they need to make and maintain more weapons, (b) targeted raids by ground forces to locate and rescue hostages and draw militants into firefights, and (c) search and destroy raids into Hamas tunnel complexes, then the proportionality discussion necessarily revolves around what kind of military force reasonable to obtain those objectives and provide security for the attacking force.
If the military objective were simply to prevent physical incursions into Israel by armed militants and nothing more, the proportionality analysis looks different.
IMO the discussion in the media has been a lot of talking past each other as it involves assuming that something like the latter is the only legitimate or proper Israeli military objective. Under that assumption, the IDF assault certainly looks out of proportion. But if it is appropriate for Israeli to have broader military objectives, the analysis is more complicated. Under the law of war, the kinds of objectives listed above are appropriate; I can't speak to their advisability.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2023, 03:16:04 PMThat's true but it is subjective judgment tied to an objective reality as opposed to just a free form subjectivity.
To make it more concrete in context, if Israel is pursuing the military objectives of: (a) denying Hamas access to supplies and materials they need to make and maintain more weapons, (b) targeted raids by ground forces to locate and rescue hostages and draw militants into firefights, and (c) search and destroy raids into Hamas tunnel complexes, then the proportionality discussion necessarily revolves around what kind of military force reasonable to obtain those objectives and provide security for the attacking force.
If the military objective were simply to prevent physical incursions into Israel by armed militants and nothing more, the proportionality analysis looks different.
That makes sense.
So the law doesn't define what the allowable number of civilians to kill for each member of the military is, but it does say that depending on the nature of the operation that undefined number should be higher and others it should be lower.
Jah?
Somewhat of a simplification as I understand it, but basically right.
Quote from: viper37 on November 05, 2023, 07:48:44 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 05, 2023, 07:03:04 PMI don't remember you asking questions like this during the 2 year ISIS campaign that involved many bombings targeting ISIS leaders with nearby civilians being killed. Why is that?
Did anyone here defend the actions of ISIS?
When the few, limited actions to bomb ISIS leaders by occidental countries occurred, where they in the tune of 50-60 civilians killed to 1 ISIS leader?
I remember occidental countries mostly sitting on their arse and volunteers going to fight by themselves with Kurdish troops.
But you must have been overjoyed to see Russia's intervention in Syria.
I'm specifically talking about the
40,000 Iraqi civilians that died during the Battle of Mosul, in large part this would not have occurred if coalition forces hadn't insisted on invading and taking Mosul away from ISIS.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2023, 11:10:53 AMI don't know how clear that is. The military manuals of the two countries say similar things. The US has never had to fight in this kind of situation with a heavily armed terrorist group running an autonomous region right on the border and with thousands armed militants deliberately mixed with the civilian population. Especially if you increased the size of the adversary to fit proportionally with the relative size of the US. Somehow I doubt that the US would would act with appreciably more restraint then Israel is doing now. I agree that in this conflict, the US is trying to play a calming role with Israel which is appropriate. But that is not necessarily a guide as how the US would act if faced with a similar a situation of its own.
Again, I think this may be right. But this is astonishingly tepid for the US describing a friendly nation who it is supplying with arms:
QuoteAlex Marquardt
@MarquardtA
On Israeli efforts to minimize civilian casualties, NSC's John Kirby says: "We have seen some indications that there are there are efforts being applied in certain scenarios to try to minimize, but I don't want to overstate that."
You call it tepid, I call it a measured statement by a country that is invested in maintaining credilbity..
The Biden administration is committed to supporting Israel. But that doesn't mean they trust this Israeli government. Nor should they.
It was a big mistake to keep the PM in place after such a disaster; Israel wears big boy democracy pants and could handle the changeover. At this point it's like retaining Chamberlain through and past 1940. Aside from the lack of domestic trust, Israel needs a leader who is willing and able to communicate effectively to the outside world.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2023, 08:47:10 AMThe Biden administration is committed to supporting Israel. But that doesn't mean they trust this Israeli government. Nor should they.
It was a big mistake to keep the PM in place after such a disaster; Israel wears big boy democracy pants and could handle the changeover. At this point it's like retaining Chamberlain through and past 1940. Aside from the lack of domestic trust, Israel needs a leader who is willing and able to communicate effectively to the outside world.
Except Chamberlain did not have prison waiting for him after resigning. My biggest worry in all this is Bibi being in charge. i don't think there's a single person alive with more material interest in keeping hostilities going ad infinitum.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2023, 08:31:00 AMYou call it tepid, I call it a measured statement by a country that is invested in maintaining credilbity..
"Some indications...there are efforts...applied in certain scenarios to try...but I don't want to overstate that." Definitely no danger of overstating it :lol:
Quote from: Tamas on November 07, 2023, 08:52:32 AMExcept Chamberlain did not have prison waiting for him after resigning. My biggest worry in all this is Bibi being in charge. i don't think there's a single person alive with more material interest in keeping hostilities going ad infinitum.
All the more reason to force him out.
Quote from: Tamas on November 07, 2023, 08:52:32 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2023, 08:47:10 AMThe Biden administration is committed to supporting Israel. But that doesn't mean they trust this Israeli government. Nor should they.
It was a big mistake to keep the PM in place after such a disaster; Israel wears big boy democracy pants and could handle the changeover. At this point it's like retaining Chamberlain through and past 1940. Aside from the lack of domestic trust, Israel needs a leader who is willing and able to communicate effectively to the outside world.
Except Chamberlain did not have prison waiting for him after resigning. My biggest worry in all this is Bibi being in charge. i don't think there's a single person alive with more material interest in keeping hostilities going ad infinitum.
You both make excellent points
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2023, 10:00:48 AMQuote from: Tamas on November 07, 2023, 08:52:32 AMExcept Chamberlain did not have prison waiting for him after resigning. My biggest worry in all this is Bibi being in charge. i don't think there's a single person alive with more material interest in keeping hostilities going ad infinitum.
All the more reason to force him out.
Absolutely. He may be the second most dangerous person int he world right now, after Putin. He has direct influence over how this clusterfuck will develop, and a calm resolution works actively against his interests I think, with the possible exception of some strategic breakthrough in resolving the Palestinian situation in Israel's benefit, awesome enough to make him survive the inquiries into the failures leading to 7 November.
He is nowhere near as powerful as Putin; the two systems of government and their internal dynamics are totally different.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2023, 10:50:16 AMHe is nowhere near as powerful as Putin; the two systems of government and their internal dynamics are totally different.
Hence why he is not first ;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2023, 08:47:10 AMThe Biden administration is committed to supporting Israel. But that doesn't mean they trust this Israeli government. Nor should they.
It was a big mistake to keep the PM in place after such a disaster; Israel wears big boy democracy pants and could handle the changeover. At this point it's like retaining Chamberlain through and past 1940. Aside from the lack of domestic trust, Israel needs a leader who is willing and able to communicate effectively to the outside world.
Disagree. For one you're talking as if the conspiracy theory that Netanyahu had foreknowledge of the attack and let it proceed to pursue his own nefarious ends is a fact. Second, a national crisis is not time to look around for scapegoats, it's the time to band together and work your way out of it. Third, letting Netanyahu's shitty relationship with the Democratic party influence your own decision making only reinforces the narrative of Israel as a US client state, which (a) puts us more on the hook for anything they do and (b) emboldens their enemies by making them appear less able to defend themselves. The US, on the other hand, has to proceed on the basis of how things actually are, not how we wish they were.
The argument against Nethanyahu (or one of them) is not (only) that he might have had foreknowledge and let it proceed - but that his whole policy of aggressively pushing into the West Bank on behalf of radical settlers while leaving Gaza under monitored and under defended - is what allowed this to happen in the first place.
Quote from: Jacob on November 07, 2023, 11:32:42 AMThe argument against Nethanyahu (or one of them) is not (only) that he might have had foreknowledge and let it proceed - but that his whole policy of aggressively pushing into the West Bank on behalf of radical settlers while leaving Gaza under monitored and under defended - is what allowed this to happen in the first place.
Right, and this is a decision that the Israeli voting public has given every indication of being comfortable with, and which renouncing at this exact moment would send the signal that the best way to extract further concessions is to behead some more babies.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2023, 11:28:45 AMDisagree. For one you're talking as if the conspiracy theory that Netanyahu had foreknowledge of the attack and let it proceed to pursue his own nefarious ends is a fact. Second, a national crisis is not time to look around for scapegoats, it's the time to band together and work your way out of it. Third, letting Netanyahu's shitty relationship with the Democratic party influence your own decision making only reinforces the narrative of Israel as a US client state, which (a) puts us more on the hook for anything they do and (b) emboldens their enemies by making them appear less able to defend themselves. The US, on the other hand, has to proceed on the basis of how things actually are, not how we wish they were.
In reponse:
1. As Jacob points out above, it is not a conspiracy theory to point out the government's policy of downplaying security risks to Gaza to bolster their settlement policy on the West Bank nor his adherence to the policy of using Hamas to play off and weaken Fatah. Nor it is conspiracy theory to point out the obvious and glaring fact of a massive intelligence and security failure and the PM's accountability for it.
2. You are correct, a national crisis is not the time to look for scapegoats. And since Netanyahu cannot stop himself from doing exactly that, causing yet more divisions in society, that is yet another reason he must go ASAP.
3. I was not aware that Netanyahu had a relationship with the US Democratic Party, shitty or otherwise, nor did that thought enter in my mind in the slightest. My concern is hi9s complete lack of credibility on the international stage and his inability AND unwillingness to make a persuasive case for Israel's actions before the international community. The US Democratic Party is close to the least of his problems in that respect.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2023, 11:42:22 AMRight, and this is a decision that the Israeli voting public has given every indication of being comfortable with, and which renouncing at this exact moment would send the signal that the best way to extract further concessions is to behead some more babies.
Sending the message of fair and just accountability for conduct is always the right message to send, at all times, and in all places.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2023, 12:01:50 PMSending the message of fair and just accountability for conduct is always the right message to send, at all times, and in all places.
Disagree. After 9/11 I had zero interest in reassessing US policy towards the Muslim world to see if there was anything we should be doing better. I wanted to stack 'em up. After the dust has settled and the bodies are buried is when you examine your own conscience. Maybe that makes you the better person, but I can't ask the Israelis to be a better person than me.
Assassination attempt (unconfirmed) on Mahmoud Abbas.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2023, 11:59:35 AMIn reponse:
1. As Jacob points out above, it is not a conspiracy theory to point out the government's policy of downplaying security risks to Gaza to bolster their settlement policy on the West Bank nor his adherence to the policy of using Hamas to play off and weaken Fatah. Nor it is conspiracy theory to point out the obvious and glaring fact of a massive intelligence and security failure and the PM's accountability for it.
2. You are correct, a national crisis is not the time to look for scapegoats. And since Netanyahu cannot stop himself from doing exactly that, causing yet more divisions in society, that is yet another reason he must go ASAP.
3. I was not aware that Netanyahu had a relationship with the US Democratic Party, shitty or otherwise, nor did that thought enter in my mind in the slightest. My concern is hi9s complete lack of credibility on the international stage and his inability AND unwillingness to make a persuasive case for Israel's actions before the international community. The US Democratic Party is close to the least of his problems in that respect.
1. I don't know what you mean by the downplaying part. I understand and don't dispute the part about building up Hamas (I guess analogous to us building up the Taliban to fight Russia) but I thought this was long ago, at the time Gaza was evacuated, and not on Netanyahu's tab. I don't understand the intelligence failure argument. Did he starve the Mossad of funds? Did he put his incompetent cronies in charge? I don't think there has to be a bad actor at the heart of every intelligence failure. The nature of intelligence is that you are trying to learn other people's secrets and sometimes they manage to keep them secret.
2. I don't know what scapegoating you are talking about me. Please enlighten me.
3. Don't play stupid, if there's anyone it doesn't suit it's you. Obama tried to hardball the Israelis into stopping settlements and Netanyahu spit in his face and told him we've already counted the votes and you lose. If the US's trust in Netanyahu is not a factor, why did you start the bowling with it, in response to Shelf's newsflash? And can you say if Israel had a trustworthy PM the Arab street would have reacted any differently to the failed rocket that hit the hospital? Who exactly is the target audience for your hypothetical trustworthy PM?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2023, 12:27:19 PM1. I don't know what you mean by the downplaying part. I understand and don't dispute the part about building up Hamas (I guess analogous to us building up the Taliban to fight Russia) but I thought this was long ago, at the time Gaza was evacuated, and not on Netanyahu's tab. I don't understand the intelligence failure argument. Did he starve the Mossad of funds? Did he put his incompetent cronies in charge? I don't think there has to be a bad actor at the heart of every intelligence failure. The nature of intelligence is that you are trying to learn other people's secrets and sometimes they manage to keep them secret.
1. One example: large number of troops moved away from Gaza to protect West Bank settlers in response to West Bank settlers fucking with Palestinians - as opposed to attempt to rein in West Bank settlers fuckery.
Quote2. I don't know what scapegoating you are talking about me. Please enlighten me.
2. Nethanyahu accused those in the military and intelligence services who were protesting his attack on the Constitution as traitors to the country whose opposition to him emboldened Hamas to make this attack.
Quote3. Don't play stupid, if there's anyone it doesn't suit it's you. Obama tried to hardball the Israelis into stopping settlements and Netanyahu spit in his face and told him we've already counted the votes and you lose. If the US's trust in Netanyahu is not a factor, why did you start the bowling with it, in response to Shelf's newsflash? And can you say if Israel had a trustworthy PM the Arab street would have reacted any differently to the failed rocket that hit the hospital? Who exactly is the target audience for your hypothetical trustworthy PM?
I'll leave JR to respond because I don't understand what you're saying here.
I spoke of the US trust in the Israeli goverment because sheilbh's comment was about the content of a US government communication. That was an administration communication, not a Democratic Party communication. And although it is true Biden is a Democrat, I do not see that lack of trust as an American political party issue but as a matter of common sense assessment of the reality of the composition of the present government, their public statements, and their public positions.
But my comment about why Bibi should go, although contained in the same post, was a separate point. Whether Biden's security team trusts him is tertiary at best. That's not why he needs to go; Israel can function just fine with some level of personal distrust with their otherwise solid US ally. The reasons he needs to go are the reasons I gave, which has little to do with the specific dynamics of the US relationship.
Quote from: Jacob on November 07, 2023, 12:40:02 PM1. One example: large number of troops moved away from Gaza to protect West Bank settlers in response to West Bank settlers fucking with Palestinians - as opposed to attempt to rein in West Bank settlers fuckery.
Wouldn't moving troops to the settlements do both? Or we have credible eyewitness accounts of IDF troops laughing and smoking cigarettes while some deranged settler shoots up Palestinians?
As to "downplaying the risk to Gaza," isn't that just another way of phrasing the conspiracy theory?
Quote2. Nethanyahu accused those in the military and intelligence services who were protesting his attack on the Constitution as traitors to the country whose opposition to him emboldened Hamas to make this attack.
Well that certainly sucks.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2023, 01:01:22 PMWouldn't moving troops to the settlements do both? Or we have credible eyewitness accounts of IDF troops laughing and smoking cigarettes while some deranged settler shoots up Palestinians?
You know that West Bank settlements are on the opposite side of the country as Gaza, right? Moving troops to the settlements
weakened protections at Gaza.
If you allow the West Bank settlers to run riot and as a consequence require a significantly increased military presence to keep them safe, and if you provide that increased military presence by withdrawing troops that previously monitored the border with Gaza, then you have weakened the protection of Israel near Gaza. That is what happened, and that is what Hamas exploited.
"IDF troops laughing and smoking cigarettes while some deranged settler shoots up Palestinians" is a complete non-sequiteur. IDF troops were unavailable because Nethanyahu's policy decisions - long term and short term - had led to them being deployed on the other side of the country to support his core voters picking fights with Palestinians.
QuoteAs to "downplaying the risk to Gaza," isn't that just another way of phrasing the conspiracy theory?
No.
There's no conspiracy theory.
QuoteWell that certainly sucks.
It does.
Quote from: Jacob on November 07, 2023, 01:17:05 PMYou know that West Bank settlements are on the opposite side of the country as Gaza, right? Moving troops to the settlements weakened protections at Gaza.
If you allow the West Bank settlers to run riot and as a consequence require a significantly increased military presence to keep them safe, and if you provide that increased military presence by withdrawing troops that previously monitored the border with Gaza, then you have weakened the protection of Israel near Gaza. That is what happened, and that is what Hamas exploited.
It is an irrefutable fact. Troops that are deployed to sector A cannot also be deployed to sector B. Troops are a finite resource therefor have to be deployed to areas of the highest priority. It seems very natural and logical to me that if settlers are shooting up Palestinians right *now* and Hamas is not cutting baby heads right *now* that the West Bank is a higher priority.
Quote"IDF troops laughing and smoking cigarettes while some deranged settler shoots up Palestinians" is a complete non-sequiteur. IDF troops were unavailable because Nethanyahu's policy decisions - long term and short term - had led to them being deployed on the other side of the country to support his core voters picking fights with Palestinians.
I think it sequited perfectly with your comment "as opposed to attempt to rein in West Bank settler asshattery." Because if they put out their cigarettes and told a settler to chill out, or put him jail, or shot him, they are doing exactly what you said they are not doing.
QuoteNo.
There's no conspiracy theory.
I guess that's settled then.
Something doesn't make sense to me.
Were these IDF troops moved to the WB before or after the Hamas attack? If before, there was a sudden spate of settler on Palestinian violence just before the Hamas attack?
After makes more sense. Before seems random.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2023, 01:31:29 PMIt is an irrefutable fact. Troops that are deployed to sector A cannot also be deployed to sector B. Troops are a finite resource therefor have to be deployed to areas of the highest priority. It seems very natural and logical to me that if settlers are shooting up Palestinians right *now* and Hamas is not cutting baby heads right *now* that the West Bank is a higher priority.
Indeed.
And since it's Nethanyahu's government policies that led to situation in the West Bank, it seems pretty natural to blame him for the consequences.
QuoteI think it sequited perfectly with your comment "as opposed to attempt to rein in West Bank settler asshattery." Because if they put out their cigarettes and told a settler to chill out, or put him jail, or shot him, they are doing exactly what you said they are not doing.
IDF troops were not in the West Bank to rein in settlers, but to protect them against the Palestinian's reactions (and to enable settlers to accelerate their shenanigans).
Reining in settlers would have been an entirely different action, done at a different time, requiring a different set of resources.
QuoteI guess that's settled then.
I'm glad you agree.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2023, 01:36:53 PMSomething doesn't make sense to me.
Were these IDF troops moved to the WB before or after the Hamas attack? If before, there was a sudden spate of settler on Palestinian violence just before the Hamas attack?
After makes more sense. Before seems random.
My understanding of the timescale is that it was extended. It was not "move troops this week" followed by "Hamas attacks".
It was months and years of allowing WB settlers to escalate, and months and years of reallocating resources from Gaza to the WB to protect the settlers (and relying on automated systems and fences to replace them at Gaza).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2023, 12:27:19 PM1. I don't know what you mean by the downplaying part. I understand and don't dispute the part about building up Hamas (I guess analogous to us building up the Taliban to fight Russia) but I thought this was long ago, at the time Gaza was evacuated, and not on Netanyahu's tab.
In 2015 Smotrich the current Finance Minister said "the Palestinian Authority is a burden, and Hamas is an asset [...] it's a terrorist organization, no one will recognize it, no one will give it status at the [International Criminal Court], no one will let it put forth a resolution at the U.N. Security Council."
In 2019 at Likud meeting Netanyahu reportedly said "those who want to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state should support the strengthening of Hamas and the transfer of money to Hamas [...] this is part of our strategy, to differentiate between the Palestinians in Gaza and the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria."
Throughout his recent time in office the number of Gazans getting work permits has vastly increased (this was used by Hamas in their attack), there was increased funding for Hamas and there were backchannel talks between Israel and Hamas (via the Egyptians and the Qataris. This has been part of Netanyahu's strategy for the last twenty years and it was based on a fundamental misreading of Hamas' intent and capability.
QuoteI don't understand the intelligence failure argument. Did he starve the Mossad of funds? Did he put his incompetent cronies in charge? I don't think there has to be a bad actor at the heart of every intelligence failure. The nature of intelligence is that you are trying to learn other people's secrets and sometimes they manage to keep them secret.
That there were warnings, not least by the Egyptians - but also it has emerged Islamic Jihad practicing a breakthrough near the fence which was observed by Israeli troops. There has also been reporting that Netanyahu waved away specific warnings from the heads of Shin Bet and the IDF intelligence service. I don't think it's a conspiracy - I think it's hubris. I think the assessment from Netanyahu (and others in the Israeli state) was that Hamas were incapable of an attack like 7 October. Gaza was nullified by Iron Dome. It's not conspiracy or a bad actor - it's Stalin in 1941. A combination of hubris and the fact that acknowledging the risk would undermine your entire strategy (which is challenging for any politician to do).
Quote2. Nethanyahu accused those in the military and intelligence services who were protesting his attack on the Constitution as traitors to the country whose opposition to him emboldened Hamas to make this attack.
Also the late night tweet saying: "Contrary to the false claims, under no circumstances and at no stage was I provided any warning on the intentions of Hamas to wage war. On the contrary, all the security sources, including the heads of the IDF's Intelligence Directorate and Shin Bet, assessed that Hamas was deterred. This was the assessment submitted time after time to the prime minister and the cabinet by all the sources in the defense and the intelligence community right up until the outbreak of the war."
He deleted it and then u-turned to the need for unity. I think that's one of two or three times where he's come under public pressure from Gantz etc and had to delete or withdraw remarks trying to place the blame on the security forces or opposition. This was followed by the reports I mentioned above sourced in the intelligence services that they provided specific warnings. As I say he is incapable of acting as a unifying national leader and that is really bad for Israel right now.
QuoteDisagree. After 9/11 I had zero interest in reassessing US policy towards the Muslim world to see if there was anything we should be doing better. I wanted to stack 'em up. After the dust has settled and the bodies are buried is when you examine your own conscience. Maybe that makes you the better person, but I can't ask the Israelis to be a better person than me.
This is one of the points where I think 9/11 is not a helpful comparison/frame. There is no rally round the flag effect for Netanyahu. Over 75% of Israelis want him to resign, a majority blame him. Admittedly about half say he should only resign after the war. He is not Bush. Israel is not the United States - it cannot afford to rally around bad leadership and a perceived failure of leadership on security, which is the perception of Netanyahu, is fatal because Israel cannot afford that type of risk.
QuoteMy understanding of the timescale is that it was extended. It was not "move troops this week" followed by "Hamas attacks".
It's been climbing since the mid-2010s. I think in the first half of this year settler violence against Palestinians or Palsestinian property was running at about three incidents a day and, on average, one Palestinian casualty a day. It is worth saying that under the current coalition especially that is to protect settlers from retaliation more than to restrain them.
Quote from: Jacob on November 07, 2023, 01:42:40 PMIndeed.
And since it's Nethanyahu's government policies that led to situation in the West Bank, it seems pretty natural to blame him for the consequences.
When I responded to Joan's post I thought he was saying something other than Netanyahu should resign because Israel's settler policy is bad. I agree it's bad. It's the main reason I stopped supporting Israel. I thought there was something recent that had happened that was the driver of this call for resignation. If what we're debating is whether Israel's long standing settler policy means Netanyahu should resign, then I will differ with you in saying the voters that gave him a majority are the ones who should resign.
QuoteIDF troops were not in the West Bank to rein in settlers, but to protect them against the Palestinian's reactions (and to enable settlers to accelerate their shenanigans).
Reining in settlers would have been an entirely different action, done at a different time, requiring a different set of resources.
I have seen at least youtube clip of Israeli uniformed personnel with weapons disputing with settlers dressed in Hassidic clothes armed with Uzis about throwing rocks at Palestinians so I know reining in settlers is at least a theoretical possibility and I can't think of any practical reason members of the IDF could not do this as well as any other uniformed, officially sanctioned Israeli. So for me to agree with you on this I would either need visual confirmation that these redeployed troops, acting presumably under Netanyahu's orders, stood by while settlers shot up Palestinians or your word that you have seen visual evidence of these troops standing by while settlers shot up Palestinians.
QuoteI'm glad you agree.
I did not agree. Be less glad.
I also want to say I think this thread is Languish's finest moment. While the world at large is tearing each other apart we have managed to maintain a high level of civility and discourse.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 07, 2023, 02:30:53 PMIn 2019 at Likud meeting Netanyahu reportedly said "those who want to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state should support the strengthening of Hamas and the transfer of money to Hamas [...] this is part of our strategy, to differentiate between the Palestinians in Gaza and the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria."
This is exactly what I would tell the world if I were Israel's PM.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 06, 2023, 03:33:12 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 05, 2023, 07:48:44 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 05, 2023, 07:03:04 PMI don't remember you asking questions like this during the 2 year ISIS campaign that involved many bombings targeting ISIS leaders with nearby civilians being killed. Why is that?
Did anyone here defend the actions of ISIS?
When the few, limited actions to bomb ISIS leaders by occidental countries occurred, where they in the tune of 50-60 civilians killed to 1 ISIS leader?
I remember occidental countries mostly sitting on their arse and volunteers going to fight by themselves with Kurdish troops.
But you must have been overjoyed to see Russia's intervention in Syria.
I'm specifically talking about the 40,000 Iraqi civilians that died during the Battle of Mosul, in large part this would not have occurred if coalition forces hadn't insisted on invading and taking Mosul away from ISIS.
How many would have died if ISIS had been allowed to keep killing people?
If we refer to other conflicts, ultimately, some interventions save lives when done properly. I'm not that familiar with Asian history, but eventually, when the Vietnamese got fed up with Pol Pot, they saved lives.
If France and the UK had attacked Germany as soon as they rearmed Rhenania, in contradiction of the Treaty of Versailles, some civilian lives would have been lost, but much less than what was lost later on.
Similarly, attacking Germany in 1939 led to a tremendous loss of civilian lives, but much less than letting Germany do its business, as many pro-peace wanted.
In the case of Gaza, the goals are much different. The goals of the current government is to clean Palestine of the Palestinian elements, not just Hamas.
If the goals of WWII had been to depopulate Germany, we might have viewed the war differently. Or maybe not. I'm sure there would be people, still today, to proudly declare to hate all Germans, a vicious people with a vicious ideology.
Had the goals of vanquishing Hamas and only Hamas been the real objective, a government focused on security would have tackled the issue long ago instead of sending its army to protect settlers attacking Palestinian civilians in occupied territories, constantly expanding their lands at the expanse of the people living there under any pretext. Hamas was allowed to expand its operation. Hamas was allowed to grow. The border was left defenseless. 1400 people paid with their lives.
If you breed pythons at home, you don't leave their cage/aquariums unguarded while you have small children playing/sleeping next to them. You exercise caution. You don't let the snake loose in the house while you go shopping and leave the kids at home. That's call negligence. The snake only did what its instincts told him to do.
Hamas is what Hamas is. Don't pretend Netanyahu didn't know the Hamas would not attack at some point. The only surprise was that it happened on October 7th. It could have happened in September or in November. They let Qatari money flow for years. They have satellite of all kinds over there to watch Hamas activities. Egypt and the US knew something was going on, but Israel was too busy elsewhere.
If one python eats a kid, you kill that python, not all pythons in the world.
But it's ok, you got your war. Jews all over the world have a target on their back. Happy now?
A synagogue was firebombed in Montreal yesterday (https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/west-island-synagogue-jewish-community-centre-firebombed-montreal-police-say). A hate preacher (https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/quebec-leaders-want-hate-speech-investigation-into-adil-charkaoui) in the city called for the killing of Jews (technically: the enemies of the Gaza people), everywhere. Maybe someone will enter a Mosque and start shooting as a preventive measure?
FFS open you fucking eyes as to what is happening.
Was has military objectives.
The Allies entered WWII with clearly defined military objectives, and each operation had a target with a military objective.
Their goals was never to depopulate Germany to resettle it with British and French colonists. Or to replace Italians with Greeks.
Wake-up! That was the Nazi plan: depopulate Eastern Europe and replace the population there with their own colonists. Somehow, that was considered evil. Even when it was not about killing them, but simply displacing them.
But today, it's considered justified when it's Israel. And any act of resistance is considered terrorism. Peaceful protest? Terrorism. Throwing rocks at a tank? Terrorism. Attacking armed soldiers? Terrorism. Real acts of terrorism, obviously, what they are. Helping an injured civilian? Terrorism and worthy of getting you shot by a sniper.
What's worst is that there are people voting for these kind of political parties.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2023, 06:52:37 PMWhen I responded to Joan's post I thought he was saying something other than Netanyahu should resign because Israel's settler policy is bad. I agree it's bad. It's the main reason I stopped supporting Israel. I thought there was something recent that had happened that was the driver of this call for resignation. If what we're debating is whether Israel's long standing settler policy means Netanyahu should resign, then I will differ with you in saying the voters that gave him a majority are the ones who should resign.
...
I have seen at least youtube clip of Israeli uniformed personnel with weapons disputing with settlers dressed in Hassidic clothes armed with Uzis about throwing rocks at Palestinians so I know reining in settlers is at least a theoretical possibility and I can't think of any practical reason members of the IDF could not do this as well as any other uniformed, officially sanctioned Israeli. So for me to agree with you on this I would either need visual confirmation that these redeployed troops, acting presumably under Netanyahu's orders, stood by while settlers shot up Palestinians or your word that you have seen visual evidence of these troops standing by while settlers shot up Palestinians.
Okay, so the argument I'm putting forward is one I've heard as coming from within Israel, from Israelis. As Sheilbh said upthread said, more than 75% of Israelis think Nethanyahu should resign. Joan has also outlined some of the criticism from within Israel.
Personally I think Nethanyahu is a slimeball, and the far right parties in his government are evil scumbags. But I don't have an opinion on whether Nethanyahu should resign. That's for Israelis to decide, using their democratic rights.
So I'm not going to convince you of anything. You can decide whether the criticism (from within Israel) is legit or whether it's a "conspiracy theory" in your eyes, and Israelis can decide whether or not - and when - to act on it.
QuoteI did not agree. Be less glad.
I recognized your sarcasm and responded with sarcasm of my own. You failed to recognize. Point for me :)
Quote from: Jacob on November 07, 2023, 08:28:38 PMOkay, so the argument I'm putting forward is one I've heard as coming from within Israel, from Israelis.
Why in the world did you not say this at the beginning instead of arguing for three pages whether it's true or not?
QuoteI recognized your sarcasm and responded with sarcasm of my own. You failed to recognize. Point for me :)
Failure to recognize sarcasm disputed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2023, 09:05:14 PMWhy in the world did you not say this at the beginning instead of arguing for three pages whether it's true or not?
... because others had already stated that this point of view originated within Israel. I was surprised at your vehemence in arguing against it, but accept that I could have restated the origin to shorten the argument.
On the upside, we managed to have some mutually respectful conversation on a contentious topic, so that counts as a plus, right? :hug:
QuoteFailure to recognize sarcasm disputed.
Hmm. I guess we'll have to send it to VAR review.
Quote from: Jacob on November 08, 2023, 01:15:00 AM... because others had already stated that this point of view originated within Israel. I was surprised at your vehemence in arguing against it, but accept that I could have restated the origin to shorten the argument.
Where and when was this? I missed it.
QuoteOn the upside, we managed to have some mutually respectful conversation on a contentious topic, so that counts as a plus, right? :hug:
It got a little testy. Partial credit.
Quote from: viper37 on November 07, 2023, 08:11:34 PMHow many would have died if ISIS had been allowed to keep killing people?
ISIS wasn't really mass killing people in cities it had control of, it was primarily killing people it was fighting in attempts to take more territory, and religious minorities in areas where they were captured. But this isn't that different from Hamas--which is certainly capable of, and willing, to kill lots of people outside Gaza, but isn't generally just randomly killing people inside of Gaza.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 08, 2023, 08:56:21 AMQuote from: viper37 on November 07, 2023, 08:11:34 PMHow many would have died if ISIS had been allowed to keep killing people?
ISIS wasn't really mass killing people in cities it had control of, it was primarily killing people it was fighting in attempts to take more territory, and religious minorities in areas where they were captured. But this isn't that different from Hamas--which is certainly capable of, and willing, to kill lots of people outside Gaza, but isn't generally just randomly killing people inside of Gaza.
It's like saying the Nazis weren't really killing people in Germany anymore in 1945, so the Allies should have stopped the war outside of Germany.
Quote from: viper37 on November 08, 2023, 03:56:08 PMIt's like saying the Nazis weren't really killing people in Germany anymore in 1945, so the Allies should have stopped the war outside of Germany.
Except the Germans were killing tons of people in Germany in 1945...
Quote from: Valmy on November 08, 2023, 04:16:22 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 08, 2023, 03:56:08 PMIt's like saying the Nazis weren't really killing people in Germany anymore in 1945, so the Allies should have stopped the war outside of Germany.
Except the Germans were killing tons of people in Germany in 1945...
Well, true, they were still killing people, but much less than 1944.
And I don't have the breakdown by year, by camps, or even just by country.
Besides, they were busy destroying evidence, preparing their escape and so on.
Compared to how many they killed in 1943-1944 in Eastern Europe, or how many of their own people they had killed before the war even started, it certainly must have been less?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/E0CauHRF3RY
I enjoyed this clip of Romney confronting a protestor in the Capitol.
Carpet bombing ...
Quote from: viper37 on November 08, 2023, 06:10:28 PMQuote from: Valmy on November 08, 2023, 04:16:22 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 08, 2023, 03:56:08 PMIt's like saying the Nazis weren't really killing people in Germany anymore in 1945, so the Allies should have stopped the war outside of Germany.
Except the Germans were killing tons of people in Germany in 1945...
Well, true, they were still killing people, but much less than 1944.
And I don't have the breakdown by year, by camps, or even just by country.
Besides, they were busy destroying evidence, preparing their escape and so on.
Compared to how many they killed in 1943-1944 in Eastern Europe, or how many of their own people they had killed before the war even started, it certainly must have been less?
They had tons of enslaved workers laboring away in miserable conditions. And they kept killing people in their concentration and death camps.
The only thing that stopped them was the Allies invading. I don't know if it was less than 1944, but if it was it was only because the war ended in May.
Quote from: Valmy on November 08, 2023, 09:18:16 PMThe only thing that stopped them was the Allies invading. I don't know if it was less than 1944, but if it was it was only because the war ended in May.
But that's what I'm saying, the invasion stopped the killing.
OvB tries to ridicule my position like I'm saying there should be 0 civilian casualties.
Groups like that should not be allowed to grow, simply. And then, civilians shouldn't pay the price because we let them grow thinking it's a brilliant move.
Quote from: viper37 on November 08, 2023, 09:28:54 PMQuote from: Valmy on November 08, 2023, 09:18:16 PMThe only thing that stopped them was the Allies invading. I don't know if it was less than 1944, but if it was it was only because the war ended in May.
But that's what I'm saying, the invasion stopped the killing.
OvB tries to ridicule my position like I'm saying there should be 0 civilian casualties.
Groups like that should not be allowed to grow, simply. And then, civilians shouldn't pay the price because we let them grow thinking it's a brilliant move.
The way not to let them grow is military action.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2023, 10:13:38 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 08, 2023, 09:28:54 PMQuote from: Valmy on November 08, 2023, 09:18:16 PMThe only thing that stopped them was the Allies invading. I don't know if it was less than 1944, but if it was it was only because the war ended in May.
But that's what I'm saying, the invasion stopped the killing.
OvB tries to ridicule my position like I'm saying there should be 0 civilian casualties.
Groups like that should not be allowed to grow, simply. And then, civilians shouldn't pay the price because we let them grow thinking it's a brilliant move.
The way not to let them grow is military action.
I refer to you to Sheilb and Minsky's post about Bibi's policies toward Hamas.
Then indicate to me how this prevented the growth of the organization.
Say again. Did not recieve.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 08, 2023, 08:55:07 PMCarpet bombing ...
Right,, pretty racist to refer to bombing of an Arab city as bombing carpets.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 08, 2023, 08:56:21 AMQuote from: viper37 on November 07, 2023, 08:11:34 PMHow many would have died if ISIS had been allowed to keep killing people?
ISIS wasn't really mass killing people in cities it had control of, it was primarily killing people it was fighting in attempts to take more territory, and religious minorities in areas where they were captured.
ISIS and regular arab mass murdering autocrats also weren't much of a trigger for mass protests like those we're seeing now. You wonder what is different...
You guys keep it up a while longer and you'll end up viper arguing for the complete destruction of Gaza and Raz and others for immediate ceasefire.
BBC interviewing a Gazan dentist that was phoned up by IDF and had contact with them as his neghbourhood was bombed.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67327079 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67327079)
It's not exactly happy times, but I must say it's damn friendly for a genocide.
Quote from: Threviel on November 09, 2023, 11:17:56 AMBBC interviewing a Gazan dentist that was phoned up by IDF and had contact with them as his neghbourhood was bombed.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67327079 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67327079)
It's not exactly happy times, but I must say it's damn friendly for a genocide.
So I mean I certainly feel for the Gazans who are having their homes destroyed on like 2 hours notice. That has to be unbelievably shitty.
But the Israelis have been showing footage from October 7 to various journalists, who are now reporting on it. The footage is undoubtedly curated and edited by Israel, but there's been no allegation that it's been faked. Those journalists have then been reporting on what they saw.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-seeing-the-horror-of-hamas-slaughter-leaves-one-in-tears
There is always room to criticize Israel, but after reading both of these stories I have no doubt which side I'm more sympathetic to.
Pro-palestinian activists at Montreal's McGill University distributed poster calling for a "National Day of Shutdown" on November 9, with images of protestors kicking and breaking glass windows.
November 9 is the anniversary of Kristallnacht.
I can say that on a personal level that the Hamas attack - and the subsequent public reactions of Palestine sympathizers in the West - has shifted my perception of the Israel-Palestine conflict, on Islamists in general and in the West in particular, and on the right-on activist leftists in the West.
Quote from: Jacob on November 09, 2023, 01:10:35 PMI can say that on a personal level that the Hamas attack - and the subsequent public reactions of Palestine sympathizers in the West - has shifted my perception of the Israel-Palestine conflict, on Islamists in general and in the West in particular, and on the right-on activist leftists in the West.
Do you care to share how your perception has changed?
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2023, 01:36:01 PMDo you care to share how your perception has changed?
Relative to my previous perception I'm less sympathetic to the Palestinian political cause, more concerned about the danger of radical Islamicists, and more critical a number of leftist-activist arguments in this and related areas.
EDIT: it has also accelerated the already existing decline in desire to get involved in intenste, knock-down political arguments.
Shots fired overnight at two jewish schools in Montreal.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/jewish-schools-doors-shot-1.7023759
Quote from: Jacob on November 09, 2023, 01:40:45 PMRelative to my previous perception I'm less sympathetic to the Palestinian political cause, more concerned about the danger of radical Islamicists, and more critical a number of leftist-activist arguments in this and related areas.
EDIT: it has also accelerated the already existing decline in desire to get involved in intenste, knock-down political arguments.
The shift for me is I do think there is a bigger issue on the left with anti-semitism than I'd appreciated (and I hadn't doubted it before this).
It's not so much the response to the Hamas attack - although there is some of that. Again I imagine 90% of the people here will hate it, but I think this anti-Zionist piece captures that: https://samkriss.substack.com/p/but-not-like-this
But I'm seeing people attacking Bernie Sanders and Jon Lansman (UK ally of Corbyn) for being against the Palestinian and I think they're basically just telling on themselves. In part because they're both Jewish, but also if those opinions are being attacked as anti-Palestine, then you're not interested in peace. You just want war. Again comfortable radicals in Britain and America thrilling vicariously at other people's national liberations and revolutions, paid for in other people's blood.
Edit: I've got a post on Lansman actually in Brexit thread as his interview was interesting.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 09, 2023, 02:10:45 PMIt's not so much the response to the Hamas attack - although there is some of that. Again I imagine 90% of the people here will hate it, but I think this anti-Zionist piece captures that: https://samkriss.substack.com/p/but-not-like-this
I mean I can quibble with parts, but as long as the writer acknowledges that deliberately murdering civilians is wrong no matter how bad what "the other side" has done then we can have a conversation.
Why do you think 90% of the people here will hate it? It lines up to a T with what I think. Occupation bad, settlements bad, Hamas killing civilians bad, Israel has a right to retaliate, taking into account the suffering of Palestinian civilians caused by that retaliation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2023, 04:00:44 PMWhy do you think 90% of the people here will hate it? It lines up to a T with what I think. Occupation bad, settlements bad, Hamas killing civilians bad, Israel has a right to retaliate, taking into account the suffering of Palestinian civilians caused by that retaliation.
I'm not sure the writer said Israel had a right to retaliate. He mostly focuses on how pro-Palestinian voices are seemingly endorsing and cheering on the murder of civilians, but to the extent he's talking about Israel's response it's clear he's not in favour.
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2023, 04:05:46 PMI'm not sure the writer said Israel had a right to retaliate. He mostly focuses on how pro-Palestinian voices are seemingly endorsing and cheering on the murder of civilians, but to the extent he's talking about Israel's response it's clear he's not in favour.
Yes - he's definitely not, I think the last paragraph is clear on that. But also his stance is explicitly anti-Zionist which I don't think is common on this board. Plus it's from 10 October so written at a slightly earlier point.
I thought I read something about just Israeli military action, but i can't find it now.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 09, 2023, 01:47:53 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 08, 2023, 08:56:21 AMQuote from: viper37 on November 07, 2023, 08:11:34 PMHow many would have died if ISIS had been allowed to keep killing people?
ISIS wasn't really mass killing people in cities it had control of, it was primarily killing people it was fighting in attempts to take more territory, and religious minorities in areas where they were captured.
ISIS and regular arab mass murdering autocrats also weren't much of a trigger for mass protests like those we're seeing now. You wonder what is different...
I haven't seen many protests against Russia either. Two protests maybe. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine)
It's like people know some protests are futile, maybe?
Quote from: Tamas on November 09, 2023, 05:32:11 AMYou guys keep it up a while longer and you'll end up viper arguing for the complete destruction of Gaza and Raz and others for immediate ceasefire.
Nah.
OvB and Raz feel these kind of actions are perfectly fine and totally justifiable.
Israeli settler violence (https://www.vox.com/world-politics/2023/11/9/23945651/west-bank-israeli-settler-palestine-gaza-war-violence)
Just people getting shot at, beaten up, forced to leave their homes. Nothing to dramatic. Any pretention to the contrary would be blood libel.
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2023, 01:41:41 PMShots fired overnight at two jewish schools in Montreal.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/jewish-schools-doors-shot-1.7023759
Followed by the firebombing of a synagogue and racial riots at Concordia U where first, a Pro-Israeli protest was attacked by a pro-Palestinian mob, then the day after a Pro-Palestinian protest was attacked by pro-Israeli mob.
Bibi is happy. Jews worldwide don't feel secure anymore and are thinking of moving to Israel to displace even more Palestinians.
Quote from: viper37 on November 09, 2023, 04:33:48 PMQuote from: Barrister on November 09, 2023, 01:41:41 PMShots fired overnight at two jewish schools in Montreal.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/jewish-schools-doors-shot-1.7023759
Followed by the firebombing of a synagogue and racial riots at Concordia U where first, a Pro-Israeli protest was attacked by a pro-Palestinian mob, then the day after a Pro-Palestinian protest was attacked by pro-Israeli mob.
Bibi is happy. Jews worldwide don't feel secure anymore and are thinking of moving to Israel to displace even more Palestinians.
So it's the Jews' fault they are being chased away? Come on man.
Quote from: viper37 on November 09, 2023, 04:21:44 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 09, 2023, 01:47:53 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 08, 2023, 08:56:21 AMQuote from: viper37 on November 07, 2023, 08:11:34 PMHow many would have died if ISIS had been allowed to keep killing people?
ISIS wasn't really mass killing people in cities it had control of, it was primarily killing people it was fighting in attempts to take more territory, and religious minorities in areas where they were captured.
ISIS and regular arab mass murdering autocrats also weren't much of a trigger for mass protests like those we're seeing now. You wonder what is different...
I haven't seen many protests against Russia either. Two protests maybe. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine)
It's like people know some protests are futile, maybe?
or maybe because it's about the jews.
Which also nicely explains the dancing and the candy-sharing.
Quote from: viper37 on November 09, 2023, 04:21:44 PMI haven't seen many protests against Russia either. Two protests maybe. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine)
It's like people know some protests are futile, maybe?
There absolutely were protests against Russia. This was London:
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/84552971dc46eb5b278f597a1721ada1586f3e46/0_103_4000_2400/master/4000.jpg?width=620&dpr=1&s=none)
There are still regular Ukraine solidarity protests and marches. I'd be surprised if there aren't in many other Western countries too, not least Canada.
Although Stop the War did not protest Russia's invasion - they did a "NATO Hands Off Ukraine" protest though. And on Syria as well as ejecting two Syrian refugees from a meeting when they tried to speak in favour of intervention against Assad, they also refused to participate in a protest outside the Russian Embassy over Russia's bombings in Syria as it would only "contribute to jingoism and hysteria". They're heavily involved in the Palestine protests, of course. They tend to have a stop some wars attitude.
On ISIS there were also protests against them. There are very, very regular Kurdish protests in London. But also against ISIS, tens of thousands of Muslims in London (on Ashura so I assume predominately Shia).
Take the point these are bigger but I think in any big international city there will be protests by lots of people about many issues.
Protest operates on two sets of logic. One is purely political. Look at us, we have lots of votes, you better do what we say. The other is moral. We support what is right, and if you are a good person, you should support that too. The problem is when protestors, like Shelf's Stop the War, base their argument not on a universal principle but on a principle that is applied differently to their friends than to their enemies. In other words, not a principle at all. Why should a person who is grappling with moral choices pay any attention to people like that?
Well Stop the War are a Socialist Workers Party front. They've got loads of fronts in areas where they'll find well-meaning folks who'll carry their signs not realising who they are - like StW but also, say, Stand up to Racism, Anti-Nazi League etc.
They have a very distinct agenda. And on universal principle would be that it's anti-imperialism in all of those examples.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 09, 2023, 06:05:26 PMAnd on universal principle would be that it's anti-imperialism in all of those examples.
Unless it's their friend Russia that is imperializing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2023, 06:07:30 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on November 09, 2023, 06:05:26 PMAnd on universal principle would be that it's anti-imperialism in all of those examples.
Unless it's their friend Russia that is imperializing.
At least it made sense when they were still the USSR. Now it's like communists supporting Hitler.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 09, 2023, 05:06:38 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 09, 2023, 04:21:44 PMI haven't seen many protests against Russia either. Two protests maybe. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine)
It's like people know some protests are futile, maybe?
There absolutely were protests against Russia. This was London:
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/84552971dc46eb5b278f597a1721ada1586f3e46/0_103_4000_2400/master/4000.jpg?width=620&dpr=1&s=none)
There are still regular Ukraine solidarity protests and marches. I'd be surprised if there aren't in many other Western countries too, not least Canada.
Although Stop the War did not protest Russia's invasion - they did a "NATO Hands Off Ukraine" protest though. And on Syria as well as ejecting two Syrian refugees from a meeting when they tried to speak in favour of intervention against Assad, they also refused to participate in a protest outside the Russian Embassy over Russia's bombings in Syria as it would only "contribute to jingoism and hysteria". They're heavily involved in the Palestine protests, of course. They tend to have a stop some wars attitude.
On ISIS there were also protests against them. There are very, very regular Kurdish protests in London. But also against ISIS, tens of thousands of Muslims in London (on Ashura so I assume predominately Shia).
Take the point these are bigger but I think in any big international city there will be protests by lots of people about many issues.
I said there weren't many.
Compared to climate protests. Or anti-Iraq war protests there are few.
Montreal has protests every week-end. Maybe one was about the war against Ukraine. You would count more protests against government policies on public transit or negotiations with public employees than about anything else.
Against ISIS, there was solidarity march, some protest against our government so that that we would grand asylum to more people, but generally, people are against military intervention of any kind.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 09, 2023, 04:48:54 PMor maybe because it's about the jews.
Which also nicely explains the dancing and the candy-sharing.
If it's a protest at Concordia, it's likely about the Jews, this is a hotbed of anti-semitism in Montreal.
But candy-sharing is normal this time of the year, there are Halloween surplus.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2023, 06:07:30 PMUnless it's their friend Russia that is imperializing.
Yeah. Their take on empire is that we're in a US dominated imperialist system. If you're opposed to the US and US interests then you're anti-imperialist and deserve support.
Some people on the left know about and avoid them (there are, believe it or not, other even more problematic issues with them). But if you just turn up to an anti-austerity/war/racism protest you'll find them around selling their papers and offering people their signs (except BLM, interestingly - I think because it happened too quickly). And most people don't pay quite the level of beady attention to the far left that I do :blush:
Quote from: Tamas on November 09, 2023, 04:40:18 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 09, 2023, 04:33:48 PMQuote from: Barrister on November 09, 2023, 01:41:41 PMShots fired overnight at two jewish schools in Montreal.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/jewish-schools-doors-shot-1.7023759
Followed by the firebombing of a synagogue and racial riots at Concordia U where first, a Pro-Israeli protest was attacked by a pro-Palestinian mob, then the day after a Pro-Palestinian protest was attacked by pro-Israeli mob.
Bibi is happy. Jews worldwide don't feel secure anymore and are thinking of moving to Israel to displace even more Palestinians.
So it's the Jews' fault they are being chased away? Come on man.
I said, Bibi is happy all of this is happening.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 09, 2023, 06:17:34 PMYeah. Their take on empire is that we're in a US dominated imperialist system. If you're opposed to the US and US interests then you're anti-imperialist and deserve support.
Some people on the left know about and avoid them (there are, believe it or not, other even more problematic issues with them). But if you just turn up to an anti-austerity/war/racism protest you'll find them around selling their papers and offering people their signs (except BLM, interestingly - I think because it happened too quickly). And most people don't pay quite the level of beady attention to the far left that I do :blush:
Their North American counterparts are the International Socialists. I have a very strong dislike for them from my own activist days.
Quote from: viper37 on November 08, 2023, 10:29:26 PMthen indicate to me how this prevented the growth of the organization.
You're right, they should have been harder on Gaza.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 09, 2023, 08:09:07 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 08, 2023, 10:29:26 PMthen indicate to me how this prevented the growth of the organization.
You're right, they should have been harder on Gaza.
Israel has said they will occupy Gaza after they're done bombing it to smithereens, so you'll get your happy moment too. :)
Quote from: viper37 on November 09, 2023, 06:14:41 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 09, 2023, 04:48:54 PMor maybe because it's about the jews.
Which also nicely explains the dancing and the candy-sharing.
If it's a protest at Concordia, it's likely about the Jews, this is a hotbed of anti-semitism in Montreal.
But candy-sharing is normal this time of the year, there are Halloween surplus.
The candy sharing was explicitly done to celebrate the Hamas terror attacks. That's also a tradition
Quote from: Jacob on November 09, 2023, 07:54:14 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on November 09, 2023, 06:17:34 PMYeah. Their take on empire is that we're in a US dominated imperialist system. If you're opposed to the US and US interests then you're anti-imperialist and deserve support.
Some people on the left know about and avoid them (there are, believe it or not, other even more problematic issues with them). But if you just turn up to an anti-austerity/war/racism protest you'll find them around selling their papers and offering people their signs (except BLM, interestingly - I think because it happened too quickly). And most people don't pay quite the level of beady attention to the far left that I do :blush:
Their North American counterparts are the International Socialists. I have a very strong dislike for them from my own activist days.
It sucks that these shit bag groups have such hard to disagree with reasonable names.
Does mean as Sheilbh says you really have to pay attention to know.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 09, 2023, 06:17:34 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on November 09, 2023, 06:07:30 PMUnless it's their friend Russia that is imperializing.
Yeah. Their take on empire is that we're in a US dominated imperialist system. If you're opposed to the US and US interests then you're anti-imperialist and deserve support.
:
Here locally the biggest Palestine supporters are the almost geriatric/adult diapers wearing Boomer part of the left, who came of age during the Cold War and had Che Guevara and Castro posters on their bedroom walls in their early adult lives. Then there's the much younger part who are the terminally online identitarian part with various untreated mental illnesses which they've rationalized into political ideologies. And the last part are the seething thirdie Muslims who've washed up on our shores through some failure of immigration policy, although thankfully very few in numbers.
All are deeply unlikable if you're not a loser, each in their own unique way.
Posters of kidnapped Israelis go viral and then there is a big backlash of how dare they support genocide by highlighting that people have been kidnapped:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/10/israel-red-white-kidnapped-posters-flyers-palestine-conflict
Have to say, there's rightfully a lot of condemnation of the rise in anti-Semitism off the back of events, but there doesn't seem to be much interest in the rise in shit heads from the other direction too.
Just today stumbled on a few posts about Arab-Americans having to police what they say, then in the UK there's the attempts to try and muddy the waters between the extremists and general Palestine supporters.
Looks like data supports this too
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/muslim-americans-spike-hate-incidents-feels-reminiscent-post-911-islam-rcna122570
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 10, 2023, 01:52:25 AMQuote from: viper37 on November 09, 2023, 06:14:41 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 09, 2023, 04:48:54 PMor maybe because it's about the jews.
Which also nicely explains the dancing and the candy-sharing.
If it's a protest at Concordia, it's likely about the Jews, this is a hotbed of anti-semitism in Montreal.
But candy-sharing is normal this time of the year, there are Halloween surplus.
The candy sharing was explicitly done to celebrate the Hamas terror attacks. That's also a tradition
Are you referring to this?
Link (https://www.timesofisrael.com/arab-support-for-palestinians-swelled-by-euphoria-over-hamas-blow-to-israel/)
I don't see any indication it is a tradition (the candy sharing).
I've seen multiple instance of this over the years:
Crowd chants death to Arabs (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/israeli-crowds-chant-racist-slogans-taunt-palestinians-during-jerusalem-day-march)
Far right Israelis celebrate Gaza kids deahts (https://www.timesofisrael.com/watch-far-right-israelis-celebrate-gaza-kids-deaths/)
Israeli celebrating toddler's death (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/25/world/middleeast/ali-dawabsheh-arson-death-israel-wedding-video.html)
And we have these nice guys here:
Gaza is a cemetary (https://www.boomlive.in/fact-check/israel-palestine-conflict-gaza-children-hamas-fact-check-israelis-celebrating-deaths-in-gaza-23349)
Video from 2015. A group named Lehava. Ring a bell? It opposes Christian and Arab presence in Israel. Totally nice guys. Purity of form and essence for Jews, I guess.
Fringe movement in Israel, you'll say.
But the attorney for these guys is the current security minister of Israel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehava
Is it also an age old tradition in Israel to elect members of the Knesset who wish to decapitate the Arab-Israelis or expel the Palestinians from their lands?
So, on one hand, you have people rejoicing in the death of civilian Israelis and that is horrible, obviously.
But on the other, you guys insist on telling me that rejoicing in the death of Palestinian Arabs, specifically Muslims is a-ok.
But Raz and OvB insists I'm the racist one, with OvB insisting I'm committing blood libel against Israel, when they themselves have now admitted their plans is to "
temporarily occupy Gaza" (I assume the same way the USSR temporarily occupied Poland).
Go figure.
QuoteUS secretary of state Antony Blinken says 'far too many' Palestinians have died
Speaking in New Delhi, Blinken has said the US "appreciates" Israel's steps to minimise civilian casualties but that it is not enough, the Associated Press reports.
He said the US has proposed additional ideas to the Israelis, including longer "humanitarian pauses" and expanding the amount of assistance getting into Gaza.
Israel's efforts to formalise pauses in its military operations and the creation of a second safe corridor for them to use to escape harm are appreciated, he said.
The steps, he said "will save lives and will enable more assistance to get to Palestinians in need," but at the same time, "much more needs to be done to protect civilians and to make sure that humanitarian assistance reaches them."
The US diplomat said "far too many Palestinians have been killed, far too many have suffered these past weeks" and that everything possible should be done to prevent them harm and maximise the assistance they need.
Blinken is an idiot. Questionning Israel's military strategy like that without having their exact targeting coordinates? How dare he?
We all know they are strictly attacking military targets and any collateral damage is the result of Hamas using human shields.
***
In other news, at the end of October, Hamas proposed a 5 day truce in exchange for the release of 50 hostages, which was flatly refused by Israel.
I don't know if they should have negotiated something more, but it seems to me that, despite Hamas being untrustworthy, some more exploration should have been made in this sense.
As it is now, there's a huge risk of there being 240 more victims. :( I don't know, maybe some proof of life should have been asked at least.
The Guardian link (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/09/netanyahu-rejected-ceasefire-for-hostages-deal-in-gaza-sources-say)
Quote from: viper37 on November 10, 2023, 11:46:49 AMBlinken is an idiot. Questionning Israel's military strategy like that without having their exact targeting coordinates? How dare he?
BIden gave a 100% full-throated support to Israel Immediately after October 7. For me that was amazing to see, but didn't go down well with certain parts of his party. So for internal political reasons he's had to be a bit more nuanced. I think Bibi and Israel "get that".
QuoteWe all know they are strictly attacking military targets and any collateral damage is the result of Hamas using human shields.
I mean - I assume that's what they're doing. But as you know certain people do not necessarily give Israel the benefit of the doubt on such matters.
QuoteIn other news, at the end of October, Hamas proposed a 5 day truce in exchange for the release of 50 hostages, which was flatly refused by Israel.
I don't know if they should have negotiated something more, but it seems to me that, despite Hamas being untrustworthy, some more exploration should have been made in this sense.
As it is now, there's a huge risk of there being 240 more victims. :( I don't know, maybe some proof of life should have been asked at least.
The Guardian link (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/09/netanyahu-rejected-ceasefire-for-hostages-deal-in-gaza-sources-say)
I don't like to second guess leaders in moments of crisis like this. There may have been god reasons to turn down such a proposal. But if it literally was "5 day pause in return for 50 hostages" that sounds like a good deal for Israel. I was expecting more like "we'll return the hostages in exchange for 100s of Hamas prisoners being released", which would only encourage more hostage taking by Hamas.
I'd handle that truce story with a little care. Netanyahu's team briefed that he rejected it out of hand and there would be no truce without hostages being released.
Israel's government have confirmed there'll be a four hour "pause" every day (apparently under US pressure).
I think it won't be the only example but there is a gap between how Netanyahu is spinning it for his own purposes and decisions taken by Israel's goverment. They may have rejected Hamas's proposed terms but I'd expect more in this direction especially and that we might see more gaps between Netanyahu's language/briefings/spin and what the government actually says/does.
Five days gives Hamas a lot of time to recuperate, resupply, dig in, and get more traps in place. I can understand why Israel wouldn't agree to such a long halt absent release of substantially all the hostages.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 10, 2023, 01:42:50 PMFive days gives Hamas a lot of time to recuperate, resupply, dig in, and get more traps in place. I can understand why Israel wouldn't agree to such a long halt absent release of substantially all the hostages.
I thought about that, but they've had years to dig in, and had to know October 7 was going to cause a big Israeli response.
But like I said, I'm trying not to second guess the Israelis here. I'm sure they had good reasons. It just sounded like a worthwhile offer from Hamas for a change.
The Israelis have surrounded Al-Shifa hospital. That's probably why Hamas has asked for a ceasefire.
Quote from: Barrister on November 10, 2023, 12:09:43 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 10, 2023, 11:46:49 AMBlinken is an idiot. Questionning Israel's military strategy like that without having their exact targeting coordinates? How dare he?
BIden gave a 100% full-throated support to Israel Immediately after October 7. For me that was amazing to see, but didn't go down well with certain parts of his party. So for internal political reasons he's had to be a bit more nuanced. I think Bibi and Israel "get that".
QuoteWe all know they are strictly attacking military targets and any collateral damage is the result of Hamas using human shields.
I mean - I assume that's what they're doing. But as you know certain people do not necessarily give Israel the benefit of the doubt on such matters.
QuoteIn other news, at the end of October, Hamas proposed a 5 day truce in exchange for the release of 50 hostages, which was flatly refused by Israel.
I don't know if they should have negotiated something more, but it seems to me that, despite Hamas being untrustworthy, some more exploration should have been made in this sense.
As it is now, there's a huge risk of there being 240 more victims. :( I don't know, maybe some proof of life should have been asked at least.
The Guardian link (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/09/netanyahu-rejected-ceasefire-for-hostages-deal-in-gaza-sources-say)
I don't like to second guess leaders in moments of crisis like this. There may have been god reasons to turn down such a proposal. But if it literally was "5 day pause in return for 50 hostages" that sounds like a good deal for Israel. I was expecting more like "we'll return the hostages in exchange for 100s of Hamas prisoners being released", which would only encourage more hostage taking by Hamas.
1) There's a lot more than simple politics at play here. This isn't the first time Israel and Palestinians are at war, and no matter the government, there has always been 100% public support from the US, even under Obama.
2) I don't think they care that much if it's military or not. They consider all Palestinians to be complicit of Hamas and there is ample evidence of that by what is happening in the West Bank since Oct 7th. Whenever a target is hit that is obviously civilian, they often have trouble saying what was the intended target to begin with.
3) It's the rejection out of hand bit that bothers me most. 50 hostages for 5 days seems like a good base to start negotiations. Wasn't this war about getting back the hostages too? I don't have faith in this government like you do.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2023, 03:58:26 PMThe Israelis have surrounded Al-Shifa hospital. That's probably why Hamas has asked for a ceasefire.
They asked for a cease-fire 2 weeks ago.
OvB is gonna be pissed off at Netanyahu for committing blood libel at Israel.
Grumbler is going to be angry too.
Yi and Tamas are gonna be so mad.
And here I though it was delusional to insist this whole war had the goal of expanding Israel territory into Gaza.
Netanyahu says IDF will control Gaza after war, rejects notion of international force (https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-says-idf-will-control-gaza-after-war-rejects-notion-of-international-force/)
QuotePrime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Friday the IDF will remain in control of the Gaza Strip after the current war ends, and will not rely on international forces to oversee security along the border.
Netanyahu made the comments in a meeting with the mayors of Gaza border towns at IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv. The local leaders oversee many of the communities that were assaulted and had their residents murdered and kidnapped in Hamas's October 7 massacres of southern communities. Others have faced daily barrages of rockets from Gaza over the past month, and many communities have been evacuated as Israel presses ahead in its military campaign, leaving tens of thousands internally displaced.
"IDF forces will remain in control of the Strip, we will not give it to international forces," Netanyahu said, according to a readout from his spokesperson, not saying whether it would do so for the short or long term.
Netanyahu and his government have been vague on what they envision for Gaza after the war. Only hours earlier the premier told Fox News that Israel does not want to re-occupy or govern the Strip. Earlier this week, Netanyahu told ABC News that Israel will have "overall security responsibility" over the Gaza Strip "for an indefinite period" after the war against Hamas ends.
US officials have raised the possibility in recent weeks that an international force, possibly with troops from neighboring Arab allies, could manage security in the Strip for an interim period until it can be returned to a functioning Palestinian government, which Washington hopes will be the Palestinian Authority.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Wednesday called on Israel not to reoccupy the Strip once its war with Hamas ends.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas reiterated on Friday that the PA is ready to retake control of Gaza, but said that would only happen if the move is part of a comprehensive political solution that includes a Palestinian state established along the 1967 borders. The PA leader made the same pledge on Sunday during a meeting in Ramallah with Blinken.
He also repeated his allegations that Israel is carrying out "genocide" in Gaza as it battles Hamas there, and called for an international peace conference to provide "international guarantees" and a timetable to end Israeli control of the Palestinian territories.
The group meeting between Netanyahu and local leaders was his first since the October 7 attacks by Hamas terrorists, which saw some 1,400 people killed, most of them civilians, and over 240 abducted to Gaza.
The prime minister had come under fire for waiting over a month to meet the local leaders, criticism that intensified this week as he met settlement mayors before sitting down with the municipal heads of the area devastated by Hamas.
The mayors told Netanyahu they want a different security reality after the war is over and urged him not to agree to a ceasefire until all Gaza terrorists are eliminated, the statement from the premier's spokesperson said. They also called for a robust government support program to support their communities as the fighting continues.
Netanyahu said in a statement: "There is a great determination by [the residents] and the government to restore things to an even better state than before. To rehabilitate, to build, to grow. And first of all to bring back security, to ensure there is no Hamas and that Hamas does not return, but also to ensure there is strong life [in the communities] afterward."
Sderot mayor Alon Davidi told Army Radio ahead of the meeting on Friday: "The State of Israel is the one that brought our great enemy upon us... the leadership brought us to this place."
Among the local leaders in the south are a number of figures influential in Netanyahu's Likud party, where the prime minister has faced growing criticism for the government's failures that led to the October 7 attacks as well as those that have followed — in the slow pace of financial and other aid to affected communities.
Netanyahu is the only senior Israeli official who has refused to make a full-throated admission of responsibility for the horrors of the Hamas attacks, and is likely to face growing calls to depart office once the war ends or abates.
They need some room for their Indian workers and the new wave of Jewish immigrants to Israel this mess will encourage.
Next up: the West Bank. There are still some Palestinians to clear over there.
Hamas being entirely untrustworthy is reason enough. There's no exploration to be done with an enemy already known, the Israelis know what they are dealing with and the worth of any negotiations.
Quote from: Threviel on November 10, 2023, 04:30:43 PMHamas being entirely untrustworthy is reason enough. There's no exploration to be done with an enemy already known, the Israelis know what they are dealing with and the worth of any negotiations.
It's not "the Israelis" who took the decision, it's that guy:
Rallies organized by Likud and other right-wing groups featured depictions of Rabin in a Nazi SS uniform, or in the crosshairs of a gun.[2][3] Protesters compared the Labor party to the Nazis and Rabin to Adolf Hitler[5] and chanted, "Rabin is a murderer" and "Rabin is a traitor".[8][9] In July 1995, Netanyahu led a mock funeral procession featuring a coffin and hangman's noose at an anti-Rabin rally where protesters chanted, "Death to Rabin".[10][11] The chief of internal security, Carmi Gillon, then alerted Netanyahu of a plot on Rabin's life and asked him to moderate the protests' rhetoric, which Netanyahu declined to do.[8][12] Netanyahu denied any intention to incite violence.[2][3][13]Enemies on the outside, enemies on the inside, it's tough to live that life. Maybe he should retire to a nice little villa in Saudi Arabia? He has new friends over there...
Nethanyahu is scum.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2023, 10:13:38 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 08, 2023, 09:28:54 PMQuote from: Valmy on November 08, 2023, 09:18:16 PMThe only thing that stopped them was the Allies invading. I don't know if it was less than 1944, but if it was it was only because the war ended in May.
But that's what I'm saying, the invasion stopped the killing.
OvB tries to ridicule my position like I'm saying there should be 0 civilian casualties.
Groups like that should not be allowed to grow, simply. And then, civilians shouldn't pay the price because we let them grow thinking it's a brilliant move.
The way not to let them grow is military action.
Paradoxically that might actually guarantee rapid growth over longer periods of time.
What will almost certainly reduce the chances of Hamas replicating itself is a two state peaceful Resolution between the Palestinian in Israeli people. But I don't think there's any chance of that happening now.
Quote from: viper37 on November 10, 2023, 05:09:20 PMQuote from: Threviel on November 10, 2023, 04:30:43 PMHamas being entirely untrustworthy is reason enough. There's no exploration to be done with an enemy already known, the Israelis know what they are dealing with and the worth of any negotiations.
It's not "the Israelis" who took the decision, it's that guy:
Rallies organized by Likud and other right-wing groups featured depictions of Rabin in a Nazi SS uniform, or in the crosshairs of a gun.[2][3] Protesters compared the Labor party to the Nazis and Rabin to Adolf Hitler[5] and chanted, "Rabin is a murderer" and "Rabin is a traitor".[8][9] In July 1995, Netanyahu led a mock funeral procession featuring a coffin and hangman's noose at an anti-Rabin rally where protesters chanted, "Death to Rabin".[10][11] The chief of internal security, Carmi Gillon, then alerted Netanyahu of a plot on Rabin's life and asked him to moderate the protests' rhetoric, which Netanyahu declined to do.[8][12] Netanyahu denied any intention to incite violence.[2][3][13]
Enemies on the outside, enemies on the inside, it's tough to live that life. Maybe he should retire to a nice little villa in Saudi Arabia? He has new friends over there...
Netanyahu being scum does not make Hamas trustworthy...
I thought it was a non-controversial standard policy of states that they don't negotiate with terrorists, and for Josqs and Viper Hamas being only terrorists and not a government seems like an important distinction.
I think it is very key for increasing security for your non-kidnapped population that you do not reward the act of kidnapping. Even if you make a deal where you stop destroying the enemy in exchange of releasing their hostages, the destruction you do MUST be far more severe than the one they inflicted on you otherwise the correct math for the hostage -takers is to try again, because if its a tit-for-tat then they can hope to get lucky and end up with a better deal next time they try.
Well said Tamas. I also think that our politicians have been very careless with this for a few decades, there's been lots of negotiating and hostage buying with different islamist groups for a long time. We've showed them that we are soft and that taking hostages is profitable, and now there's lots of pressure on Israel to negotiate over the hostages again.
Sure, we might perhaps save the hostages, but we put millions more at risk. The only correct response to hostage taking is violence, negotiation should only be done if it buys time to get that violence rolling.
Quote from: Threviel on November 11, 2023, 01:28:33 AMNetanyahu being scum does not make Hamas trustworthy...
Like I said, there's a difference between rejecting out of hand and opening exploratory talks to see where it leads.
I was in no way suggesting they should take Hamas at their word. But if there was any hope at saving some hostages, they should have looked at it rather than rejecting it out of hand.
Quote from: viper37 on November 11, 2023, 12:14:28 PMLike I said, there's a difference between rejecting out of hand and opening exploratory talks to see where it leads.
I was in no way suggesting they should take Hamas at their word. But if there was any hope at saving some hostages, they should have looked at it rather than rejecting it out of hand.
They do take Hamas at their word.
Hamas says they will attack again.
Quote from: Tamas on November 11, 2023, 05:33:39 AMthought it was a non-controversial standard policy of states that they don't negotiate with terrorists,
That's a good line for movies. In reality, they do it all the time.
Like, Right now (https://www.politico.eu/article/israel-hamas-hostage-deal-critical-juncture-gaza/)
Or not so long ago about a cease-fire (https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/why-are-israel-and-hamas-negotiating-a-ceasefire-now/)
Or the hostage crisis of Lebanon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon_hostage_crisis), where negotiations were held by various parties.
Or the latest when Israel negotiated with the Hezbollah for the return of the bodies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Hezbollah_cross-border_raid) of the kidnapped soldiers.
If I search for more instances, I will find more.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 11, 2023, 12:21:36 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 11, 2023, 12:14:28 PMLike I said, there's a difference between rejecting out of hand and opening exploratory talks to see where it leads.
I was in no way suggesting they should take Hamas at their word. But if there was any hope at saving some hostages, they should have looked at it rather than rejecting it out of hand.
They do take Hamas at their word.
Hamas says they will attack again.
Well, there's that.
Quote from: Threviel on November 11, 2023, 07:47:51 AMSure, we might perhaps save the hostages, but we put millions more at risk. The only correct response to hostage taking is violence, negotiation should only be done if it buys time to get that violence rolling.
The ideal solution would have been to not create this mess in the first place.
The second ideal solution would be to find a way to rescue the hostages with a military operation. Since Israel now assure us that everywhere it strikes is a military operation, it shouldn't be too difficult, they seem to have very good intel...
Quote from: viper37 on November 11, 2023, 12:30:00 PMQuote from: Tamas on November 11, 2023, 05:33:39 AMthought it was a non-controversial standard policy of states that they don't negotiate with terrorists,
That's a good line for movies. In reality, they do it all the time.
Like, Right now (https://www.politico.eu/article/israel-hamas-hostage-deal-critical-juncture-gaza/)
Or not so long ago about a cease-fire (https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/why-are-israel-and-hamas-negotiating-a-ceasefire-now/)
Or the hostage crisis of Lebanon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon_hostage_crisis), where negotiations were held by various parties.
Or the latest when Israel negotiated with the Hezbollah for the return of the bodies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Hezbollah_cross-border_raid) of the kidnapped soldiers.
If I search for more instances, I will find more.
The last time they swapped a thousand prisoners for one soldier.
One of the guys they freed is now the head of Hamas in Gaza and directed the attack.
It is fair to say they think it was a mistake.
This doesn't disprove that negotiation with terrorists is bog standard behaviour for states.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 09, 2023, 02:10:45 PMQuote from: Jacob on November 09, 2023, 01:40:45 PMRelative to my previous perception I'm less sympathetic to the Palestinian political cause, more concerned about the danger of radical Islamicists, and more critical a number of leftist-activist arguments in this and related areas.
EDIT: it has also accelerated the already existing decline in desire to get involved in intenste, knock-down political arguments.
The shift for me is I do think there is a bigger issue on the left with anti-semitism than I'd appreciated (and I hadn't doubted it before this).
It's not so much the response to the Hamas attack - although there is some of that. Again I imagine 90% of the people here will hate it, but I think this anti-Zionist piece captures that: https://samkriss.substack.com/p/but-not-like-this
But I'm seeing people attacking Bernie Sanders and Jon Lansman (UK ally of Corbyn) for being against the Palestinian and I think they're basically just telling on themselves. In part because they're both Jewish, but also if those opinions are being attacked as anti-Palestine, then you're not interested in peace. You just want war. Again comfortable radicals in Britain and America thrilling vicariously at other people's national liberations and revolutions, paid for in other people's blood.
Edit: I've got a post on Lansman actually in Brexit thread as his interview was interesting.
Just had a chance to read that link. Very good and reasonable piece. A bit long for modern attention spans and schedules alas so I doubt many of those who need to read it will.
Could perhaps go a bit into how fascists and like minded folks love a bit of victim hood so these idiots defending the Hamas attacks are playing right into their hands. Or would that despite being true detract from the point. Hmm.
Would be good to see similar pieces coming from a more pro Israel direction too. I'm sure they must exist.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 11, 2023, 04:31:14 PMThe last time they swapped a thousand prisoners for one soldier.
One of the guys they freed is now the head of Hamas in Gaza and directed the attack.
It is fair to say they think it was a mistake.
Like Josqu said, they often do it despite their policy of never negotiating.
If it's a good idea of not depend on many variables.
The Oak and the Reed, Jean de La Fontaine.
Yeah, and from a political realist perspective it's madness to negotiate, but from a human perspective they got that soldier home. Not an easy choice to make.
Just in case someone was still in denial about the future plans for Gaza:
'We're Rolling Out Nakba 2023,' Israeli Minister Says on Northern Gaza Strip Evacuation - Israel News - Haaretz.com (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-12/ty-article/israeli-security-cabinet-member-calls-north-gaza-evacuation-nakba-2023/0000018b-c2be-dea2-a9bf-d2be7b670000)
Israel has tried to deliver fuel for the hospitals, Hamas is preventing the hospitals from taking it.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2023, 07:10:22 PMIsrael has tried to deliver fuel for the hospitals, Hamas is preventing the hospitals from taking it.
Link?
I don't know how to link Twitter pages. I got from the Pdox forums. Maybe this will work.
https://twitter.com/manniefabian/status/1723747056852893702?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1723747056852893702%7Ctwgr%5E58260126973388967002053d8eb93aab5059a8ca%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fforum.paradoxplaza.com%2Fforum%2Fthreads%2Fthe-israel-palestine-thread-yes-really.680611%2Fpage-820
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4JduL-kAnIo
Rashida Tlaib's message to progressives.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 12, 2023, 11:14:33 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/shorts/4JduL-kAnIo
Rashida Tlaib's message to progressives.
Yeah, she can go fuck herself.
So with these hospitals, news reports are saying "fighting around". I think it should be made clear if Israel is accused of shooting at a hospital full of non-combatants, because otherwise perhaps Hamas is equally to blame for using the streets around the hospital (assuming they are not using the hospital itself) as combat ground. It's hardly unheard of to give up defending stuff you don't want to see destroyed in the fighting.
Unless of course the basic stance of the news reporters is that Israel has no right to fight Hamas in which case they are solely to blame for being there.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 12, 2023, 11:14:33 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/shorts/4JduL-kAnIo
Rashida Tlaib's message to progressives.
Wow. "I want you all to know that I am personally revoking your progressive credentials unless you support my view on this particular issue" On which she has tribal allegiances due to family and religion but that's not why she supports the particular side I am sure, it's universal progressive values, such as ignoring a slaving raid killing 1400 people.
Has Amnesty condemned Gaza for using civilians as shields? They slammed Ukraine for it IIRC.
Quote from: The Brain on November 13, 2023, 04:41:59 AMHas Amnesty condemned Gaza for using civilians as shields? They slammed Ukraine for it IIRC.
No. Russia supports, indirectly, Hamas.
Not that it is going to change anyone's mind but here is a Hamas terrorist running about with an RPG just outside one of these hospitals the IDF has the AUDICITY to use weapons around:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1724058554724732928
Quote from: The Brain on November 13, 2023, 04:41:59 AMHas Amnesty condemned Gaza for using civilians as shields? They slammed Ukraine for it IIRC.
Yes. They also have routinely, and regularly condemned Hamas for human rights violation within Gaza, for years.
Quote from: Tamas on November 13, 2023, 08:50:06 AMNot that it is going to change anyone's mind but here is a Hamas terrorist running about with an RPG just outside one of these hospitals the IDF has the AUDICITY to use weapons around:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1724058554724732928
Right now, at an Israeli government meeting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q
Quote from: viper37 on November 12, 2023, 04:25:18 PMJust in case someone was still in denial about the future plans for Gaza:
'We're Rolling Out Nakba 2023,' Israeli Minister Says on Northern Gaza Strip Evacuation - Israel News - Haaretz.com (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-12/ty-article/israeli-security-cabinet-member-calls-north-gaza-evacuation-nakba-2023/0000018b-c2be-dea2-a9bf-d2be7b670000)
I'm not sure who to believe about the intentions of the Israeli cabinet. A member of the cabinet or Otto who has assured me that this is definitely not the intention of the Israeli cabinet.
C'mon Viper, you can do better than that. Really defend that anticolonialist struggle!
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 13, 2023, 10:34:21 AMQuote from: viper37 on November 12, 2023, 04:25:18 PMJust in case someone was still in denial about the future plans for Gaza:
'We're Rolling Out Nakba 2023,' Israeli Minister Says on Northern Gaza Strip Evacuation - Israel News - Haaretz.com (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-12/ty-article/israeli-security-cabinet-member-calls-north-gaza-evacuation-nakba-2023/0000018b-c2be-dea2-a9bf-d2be7b670000)
I'm not sure who to believe about the intentions of the Israeli cabinet. A member of the cabinet or Otto who has assured me that this is definitely not the intention of the Israeli cabinet.
So re. the cabinet, the agricultural minister said "yeah maybe", the PM said a clear no. Not that Bibi can be trusted at all.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 13, 2023, 10:34:54 AMC'mon Viper, you can do better than that. Really defend that anticolonialist struggle!
Is the goal here to occupy Gaza and forcefully displace Palestinians or not?
Quote from: Tamas on November 13, 2023, 10:36:07 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 13, 2023, 10:34:21 AMQuote from: viper37 on November 12, 2023, 04:25:18 PMJust in case someone was still in denial about the future plans for Gaza:
'We're Rolling Out Nakba 2023,' Israeli Minister Says on Northern Gaza Strip Evacuation - Israel News - Haaretz.com (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-12/ty-article/israeli-security-cabinet-member-calls-north-gaza-evacuation-nakba-2023/0000018b-c2be-dea2-a9bf-d2be7b670000)
I'm not sure who to believe about the intentions of the Israeli cabinet. A member of the cabinet or Otto who has assured me that this is definitely not the intention of the Israeli cabinet.
So re. the cabinet, the agricultural minister said "yeah maybe", the PM said a clear no. Not that Bibi can be trusted at all.
Bibi already said they will occupy Gaza after the war.
Quote from: viper37 on November 10, 2023, 04:15:37 PMOvB is gonna be pissed off at Netanyahu for committing blood libel at Israel.
Grumbler is going to be angry too.
Yi and Tamas are gonna be so mad.
Well, no--because nothing Netanyahu said here is a blood libel. He is clearly indicating the IDF will occupy Gaza. I assume you believe this is proof of another "Nakba" or some other stupid shit. Unlike you I am not manifestly stupid, so I don't immediately jump to stupid conclusions about every thing said in the news.
Quote from: viper37 on November 13, 2023, 11:44:45 AMQuote from: Tamas on November 13, 2023, 10:36:07 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 13, 2023, 10:34:21 AMQuote from: viper37 on November 12, 2023, 04:25:18 PMJust in case someone was still in denial about the future plans for Gaza:
'We're Rolling Out Nakba 2023,' Israeli Minister Says on Northern Gaza Strip Evacuation - Israel News - Haaretz.com (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-12/ty-article/israeli-security-cabinet-member-calls-north-gaza-evacuation-nakba-2023/0000018b-c2be-dea2-a9bf-d2be7b670000)
I'm not sure who to believe about the intentions of the Israeli cabinet. A member of the cabinet or Otto who has assured me that this is definitely not the intention of the Israeli cabinet.
So re. the cabinet, the agricultural minister said "yeah maybe", the PM said a clear no. Not that Bibi can be trusted at all.
Bibi already said they will occupy Gaza after the war.
Didn't they occupy it for decades? Did they eradicate/chase off the population? It bloody doubled during that time.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 13, 2023, 10:34:21 AMQuote from: viper37 on November 12, 2023, 04:25:18 PMJust in case someone was still in denial about the future plans for Gaza:
'We're Rolling Out Nakba 2023,' Israeli Minister Says on Northern Gaza Strip Evacuation - Israel News - Haaretz.com (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-12/ty-article/israeli-security-cabinet-member-calls-north-gaza-evacuation-nakba-2023/0000018b-c2be-dea2-a9bf-d2be7b670000)
I'm not sure who to believe about the intentions of the Israeli cabinet. A member of the cabinet or Otto who has assured me that this is definitely not the intention of the Israeli cabinet.
From the Jerusalem Post
QuotePrime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the ministers in his government to tread carefully when making public statements during a government meeting on Sunday after a second minister in the space of a week made a controversial statement.
"If you don't know or understand, don't comment," he told them. "We need to be sensitive."
Netanyahu's warning came the day after Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter said that Israel's war with Hamas was the "2023 Gaza Nakba" during an interview with N12 on Saturday night
There doesn't appear an immediate risk that Israeli military strategy and foreign policy will be run from the agricultural ministry.
Quote from: viper37 on November 13, 2023, 11:43:31 AMQuote from: Razgovory on November 13, 2023, 10:34:54 AMC'mon Viper, you can do better than that. Really defend that anticolonialist struggle!
Is the goal here to occupy Gaza and forcefully displace Palestinians or not?
No. But I want to see you defend the Hamas fighting from the hospital.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 13, 2023, 01:57:50 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 13, 2023, 11:43:31 AMQuote from: Razgovory on November 13, 2023, 10:34:54 AMC'mon Viper, you can do better than that. Really defend that anticolonialist struggle!
Is the goal here to occupy Gaza and forcefully displace Palestinians or not?
No. But I want to see you defend the Hamas fighting from the hospital.
That is irrelevant to all the discussion we've had.
Quote from: Tamas on November 13, 2023, 12:20:41 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 13, 2023, 11:44:45 AMQuote from: Tamas on November 13, 2023, 10:36:07 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 13, 2023, 10:34:21 AMQuote from: viper37 on November 12, 2023, 04:25:18 PMJust in case someone was still in denial about the future plans for Gaza:
'We're Rolling Out Nakba 2023,' Israeli Minister Says on Northern Gaza Strip Evacuation - Israel News - Haaretz.com (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-12/ty-article/israeli-security-cabinet-member-calls-north-gaza-evacuation-nakba-2023/0000018b-c2be-dea2-a9bf-d2be7b670000)
I'm not sure who to believe about the intentions of the Israeli cabinet. A member of the cabinet or Otto who has assured me that this is definitely not the intention of the Israeli cabinet.
So re. the cabinet, the agricultural minister said "yeah maybe", the PM said a clear no. Not that Bibi can be trusted at all.
Bibi already said they will occupy Gaza after the war.
Didn't they occupy it for decades? Did they eradicate/chase off the population? It bloody doubled during that time.
They've already killed 11, 180 people. I doubt they were all Hamas combatants.
Many have already fled toward the South.
As for chasing off the population, most of the population of Gaza are already refugees from the previous wars of Israel, descendants of those forces off from them homes.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 13, 2023, 11:54:05 AMHe is clearly indicating the IDF will occupy Gaza.
So. You said before there were 2.3 million inhabitants in Gaza before the war and there would still be 2.3 million inhabitants in Gaza after the war. Anything else amounted to blood libel against Israel. Care to revise your statement? Because it's pretty clear that the people won't return there.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 13, 2023, 12:44:42 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 13, 2023, 10:34:21 AMQuote from: viper37 on November 12, 2023, 04:25:18 PMJust in case someone was still in denial about the future plans for Gaza:
'We're Rolling Out Nakba 2023,' Israeli Minister Says on Northern Gaza Strip Evacuation - Israel News - Haaretz.com (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-12/ty-article/israeli-security-cabinet-member-calls-north-gaza-evacuation-nakba-2023/0000018b-c2be-dea2-a9bf-d2be7b670000)
I'm not sure who to believe about the intentions of the Israeli cabinet. A member of the cabinet or Otto who has assured me that this is definitely not the intention of the Israeli cabinet.
From the Jerusalem Post
QuotePrime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the ministers in his government to tread carefully when making public statements during a government meeting on Sunday after a second minister in the space of a week made a controversial statement.
"If you don't know or understand, don't comment," he told them. "We need to be sensitive."
Netanyahu's warning came the day after Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter said that Israel's war with Hamas was the "2023 Gaza Nakba" during an interview with N12 on Saturday night
There doesn't appear an immediate risk that Israeli military strategy and foreign policy will be run from the agricultural ministry.
If you look at the entire article, Netanyahu is clearly concerned about how the public statement's make Israel look to international public opinion. He dispute the loaded terms, not the basic facts.
Has anyone seen a breakdown of civilian deaths from the evacuation zone and the "safe" zone?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2023, 04:14:03 PMHas anyone seen a breakdown of civilian deaths from the evacuation zone and the "safe" zone?
All numbers come from Hamas ministry of Health, and the only other thing we had is the US saying the number was underestimated.
There is no breakdown by location. You have a breakdown by age and sex:
70% of casualties are women, children and the elderly (https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/factsheet-november-2023-impact-explosive-weapons-gaza-people-behind-numbers)
And of course, the hotbed of Hamas activity that is the West Bank according
to Raz:
QuoteArmed violence has also increased in the West Bank, as the total number of Palestinian fatalities by Israeli forces or settlers since 7 October amounts to more than 150, including 44 children. According to OCHA, the number of Palestinians killed in the West Bank since 7 October accounts for more than one-third of all Palestinian fatalities in the West Bank in 2023. Since 7 October, Israeli forces have injured 2,340 Palestinians, including at least 248 children, over half of them in the context of demonstrations. In a large-scale operation on July 3-4, 2023, Israeli forces in Jenin City and the Jenin Refugee Camp caused 12 Palestinian fatalities, including four children, marking the highest West Bank operation casualties since 2005. The aftermath included damage to hundreds of housing units, displacing over 500 families, with approximately 41 families still displaced. Between January 2021 and September 2023, 165 Palestinians, including 53 boys and 28 girls, were killed in the Gaza Strip, with 133 fatalities in 2021 alone, highlighting a pre-existing pattern of attacks prior to October 7. The majority of casualties were caused by air-launched explosive weapons, resulting in 2,843 injuries during this period.
Quote from: viper37 on November 13, 2023, 02:56:37 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 13, 2023, 11:54:05 AMHe is clearly indicating the IDF will occupy Gaza.
So. You said before there were 2.3 million inhabitants in Gaza before the war and there would still be 2.3 million inhabitants in Gaza after the war. Anything else amounted to blood libel against Israel. Care to revise your statement? Because it's pretty clear that the people won't return there.
I mean, there are still around 2.3m people in Gaza. And no, most aren't going anywhere. Nothing Netanyahu has said contradicts that.
Quote from: viper37 on November 13, 2023, 02:56:37 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 13, 2023, 11:54:05 AMHe is clearly indicating the IDF will occupy Gaza.
So. You said before there were 2.3 million inhabitants in Gaza before the war and there would still be 2.3 million inhabitants in Gaza after the war. Anything else amounted to blood libel against Israel. Care to revise your statement? Because it's pretty clear that the people won't return there.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 13, 2023, 05:44:03 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 13, 2023, 02:56:37 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 13, 2023, 11:54:05 AMHe is clearly indicating the IDF will occupy Gaza.
So. You said before there were 2.3 million inhabitants in Gaza before the war and there would still be 2.3 million inhabitants in Gaza after the war. Anything else amounted to blood libel against Israel. Care to revise your statement? Because it's pretty clear that the people won't return there.
I mean, there are still around 2.3m people in Gaza. And no, most aren't going anywhere. Nothing Netanyahu has said contradicts that.
Where are they going to live?
Quote from: Tamas on November 13, 2023, 12:20:41 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 13, 2023, 11:44:45 AMQuote from: Tamas on November 13, 2023, 10:36:07 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 13, 2023, 10:34:21 AMQuote from: viper37 on November 12, 2023, 04:25:18 PMJust in case someone was still in denial about the future plans for Gaza:
'We're Rolling Out Nakba 2023,' Israeli Minister Says on Northern Gaza Strip Evacuation - Israel News - Haaretz.com (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-12/ty-article/israeli-security-cabinet-member-calls-north-gaza-evacuation-nakba-2023/0000018b-c2be-dea2-a9bf-d2be7b670000)
I'm not sure who to believe about the intentions of the Israeli cabinet. A member of the cabinet or Otto who has assured me that this is definitely not the intention of the Israeli cabinet.
So re. the cabinet, the agricultural minister said "yeah maybe", the PM said a clear no. Not that Bibi can be trusted at all.
Bibi already said they will occupy Gaza after the war.
Didn't they occupy it for decades? Did they eradicate/chase off the population? It bloody doubled during that time.
According to the article the only thing Bibi has ruled out is resettlement. And that is undoubtedly true, resettlement in the short to medium term would not be viable.
But occupation is a different thing and particularly since cabinet ministers are talking about another Nakba.
That is a reference to forcing the Palestinians out and not allowing them to return.
The first Nakba is one of the reasons Gaza is so densely populated, the Palestinians who had lived in territory claimed by Israel were denied the right to return after the war.
When you see signs talking about the right to return, that is what they are talking about.
Quote from: viper37 on November 13, 2023, 06:55:54 PMWhere are they going to live?
In Gaza. You seem confused, frankly.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 13, 2023, 07:16:29 PMWhen you see signs talking about the right to return, that is what they are talking about.
The right to return is the belief that if you just really strongly insist, wars and their outcomes don't matter. There is a reason non-imbecile cultures (and I struggle to use that word for the Germans, who are very imbecilic in most ways) don't insist on a right to return and just move on with their lives. I don't know of any German right to return groups for the Eastern Territories (and they held 13 million Germans who were displaced after 1945.)
The Palestinians should have gone to Jordan and Egypt, Jordan and Egypt should have broadly accepted them and told them that they had lost a bad war and now had to accept the reality of Israel. Instead they spent decades keeping them penned up like animals and telling them "soon" the big war would come and they'd finally finish Israel off. I will note that Egypt, in particular has a significant moral responsibility because the Egyptians were the largest, most powerful Arab state in the 1950s-1980s, and were the party most directly responsible for spearheading the disastrous wars against Israel that resulted in all the Palestinian land losses from 1948-1972. Egypt is also a huge country population wise, and could have actually just absorbed all the Palestinians.
Eventually Egypt and Jordan chilled out on Israel and the Palestinians were left in their pens.
What Egypt and Jordan have done to the Palestinians--and recognize they were just the front lines of the greater Arab world, would have been akin to the Germans making the displaced Eastern provinces Germans live in small ghettoized areas on the eastern border, never able to accrue normal citizenship or other rights.
Fun fact I picked up on NPR a while back: in addition to the Quatari money that had been going to Gaza, the Palestinian Authority was (presumably still is) paying the salaries of 50,000 people. So I'm guessing like those Health Ministry folks are paid by the PA.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/l5R3DYpmxms
Unspecified "Spanish Minister" says Israel is carrying out a "planned genocide" and says they are guilty of war crimes.
The minister probably thinks that the movie epic 1492 covered the wrong subject.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2023, 02:48:06 AMhttps://www.youtube.com/shorts/l5R3DYpmxms
Unspecified "Spanish Minister" says Israel is carrying out a "planned genocide" and says they are guilty of war crimes.
She's a token minister from Podemos (head of Social Policy).
You can safely disregard anything she says.
Quote from: The Brain on November 14, 2023, 03:21:15 AMThe minister probably thinks that the movie epic 1492 covered the wrong subject.
I prefer the mini-series with Gabriel Byrne as Columbus, anyways.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088916/ (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088916/)
Yes, it also features Max von Sydow as King of Portugal D.João II.
Is the 1492 movie the one with Gerard Depardieu that basically says Columbus never did anything wrong and was actually trying to protect the innocent natives from other evil Spaniards, but was screwed over by his corrupt enemies? Lol.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 14, 2023, 06:49:31 AMShe's a token minister from Podemos (head of Social Policy).
You can safely disregard anything she says.
Disregarding people who say stupid things would deprive me of a great deal of entertainment.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 14, 2023, 12:36:54 PMIs the 1492 movie the one with Gerard Depardieu that basically says Columbus never did anything wrong and was actually trying to protect the innocent natives from other evil Spaniards, but was screwed over by his corrupt enemies? Lol.
great music though.
Not that simplistic, as far as I recall it. Out of his depth as a governor for sure, bad delegation of powers as well. Should have stayed as one of the best sailors of his time.
OTOH, evil cruel and jealous noble Spaniards certainly played a part in his fall, according to the movie.
Need to (re)watch the one with Magnum as king of Aragon. :P Plus Brando as Torquemada phoning in his lines to the extreme. :lol:
PS: last great Vangelis score indeed, as pointed out by Crazy Ivan.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 13, 2023, 10:22:42 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 13, 2023, 06:55:54 PMWhere are they going to live?
In Gaza. You seem confused, frankly.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 13, 2023, 07:16:29 PMWhen you see signs talking about the right to return, that is what they are talking about.
The right to return is the belief that if you just really strongly insist, wars and their outcomes don't matter. There is a reason non-imbecile cultures (and I struggle to use that word for the Germans, who are very imbecilic in most ways) don't insist on a right to return and just move on with their lives. I don't know of any German right to return groups for the Eastern Territories (and they held 13 million Germans who were displaced after 1945.)
The Palestinians should have gone to Jordan and Egypt, Jordan and Egypt should have broadly accepted them and told them that they had lost a bad war and now had to accept the reality of Israel. Instead they spent decades keeping them penned up like animals and telling them "soon" the big war would come and they'd finally finish Israel off. I will note that Egypt, in particular has a significant moral responsibility because the Egyptians were the largest, most powerful Arab state in the 1950s-1980s, and were the party most directly responsible for spearheading the disastrous wars against Israel that resulted in all the Palestinian land losses from 1948-1972. Egypt is also a huge country population wise, and could have actually just absorbed all the Palestinians.
Eventually Egypt and Jordan chilled out on Israel and the Palestinians were left in their pens.
What Egypt and Jordan have done to the Palestinians--and recognize they were just the front lines of the greater Arab world, would have been akin to the Germans making the displaced Eastern provinces Germans live in small ghettoized areas on the eastern border, never able to accrue normal citizenship or other rights.
So the West, the US in particular, should have stopped helping Israel long ago, since that whole right of return was derived from an imbecile culture? Jews should have stayed in Europe, damn the pogroms, or the widespread destruction of Western Europe, and fuck about the expulsion of some of the Arabic countries, they should have emigrated to wherever they were wanted?
It's a very strange belief coming from you. I'd never had expected it. You are a strange men to follow. You have a weird conception of the world.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2023, 01:09:52 AMFun fact I picked up on NPR a while back: in addition to the Quatari money that had been going to Gaza, the Palestinian Authority was (presumably still is) paying the salaries of 50,000 people. So I'm guessing like those Health Ministry folks are paid by the PA.
There are still Fatah officials in the strip, but AFAIK, none in the higher echelons.
One article mentionning it (https://www.timesofisrael.com/ministers-vote-to-transfer-tax-funds-to-pa-subtracting-money-designated-for-gaza/)
It talks of Israel suspending part of its money transfers to the PA, but mentions Fatah officials in the strip. Other sources mention exlusively the Hamas governance in Gaza, with no governance role by Fatah over there. It seems complicated.
Quote from: viper37 on November 14, 2023, 01:31:12 PMSo the West, the US in particular, should have stopped helping Israel long ago, since that whole right of return was derived from an imbecile culture? Jews should have stayed in Europe, damn the pogroms, or the widespread destruction of Western Europe, and fuck about the expulsion of some of the Arabic countries, they should have emigrated to wherever they were wanted?
It's a very strange belief coming from you. I'd never had expected it. You are a strange men to follow. You have a weird conception of the world.
They aren't remotely comparable, right? Israel is a widely recognized state with, at least the armistice line, recognized as valid borders by a large chunk of the world. Israel's Jewish right of migration basically says "if you're a Jew, you can move to and live in Israel." The U.S. has no dog in that fight.
The Palestinian right of return says "we have a right to land we lost in a war, forever, no matter what, including land that basically everyone agrees is purely Israeli under the 1947 UN partition plan."
I'll be honest, it helps me understand how right I am and how wrong Hamas supporters are when I argue with them--the intentional dishonesty and deception literally seeping out of every pro-Hamas / anti-Jewish poster here demonstrates the righteousness of supporting Israel's right to exist and supporting Israel against a dangerous and evil terrorist group.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP6raWKH7DA
CNN reporter inside hospital taken over by IDF.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 14, 2023, 02:00:23 PMThey aren't remotely comparable, right? Israel is a widely recognized state with, at least the armistice line, recognized as valid borders by a large chunk of the world. Israel's Jewish right of migration basically says "if you're a Jew, you can move to and live in Israel." The U.S. has no dog in that fight.
I was more teasing you than anything. Unlike you, I recognize that both people have a right to exist in their own country and form their own nation. I don't hate one nation or one religion in particular, only the fanatics.
Israel is a widely recognized state today. It wasn't always so.
The idea of Israel began because some people declared, mostly Jewish people all around the world, that there was an inherent right of return to Palestine for the Jewish people all around the world, beginning in the late 19th century. From there, they collected money mostly from their own people at first.
But following the events of WWII, the funding came from all over the world to find sanctuary for the Jewish refugees and the UN drew a partition plan for both nations, following years of unrest, civil war and massacres on both sides. Although the civilian Jewish population overwhelmingly agreed with the proposal and the Arabic population largely rejected it (due to their fears of continued marginalization and violence from the Jewish population), the Jewish elite/leadership decided to unitaleraly declare its independence, knowing it would lead to war, and hoping it would led them to gain more territories than the partition plan allowed (see Ben Gurion declaration on the matter).
The Jewish militias had been preparing for this for many years already, and Stalin's cooperation insured them of getting access heavy equipment. It was a no brainer for them. Funds and equipment where there. A few massacres here and there would convince enough Arabs to leave to insure there was enough lands for their population after the war. Conflicting idea arose over what the borders should be, and they left it intentionally vague as to allow them to acquire what they should gain by war and expulsions.
Should the Arab have won, a similar scenario would have been likely. But it would have been evil, because they were Arabs. Which I can never understand. One side committing atrocities is justified, but the others is always terrorism. Meh.
Anyway, back to our muttons: Israel was created by a desire of the Jewish people to return to what they thought of their homeland. A right to return across many generations, across many centuries.
It is not very dissimilar to what many now Palestinians feel: they've been expelled of the place they've lived for centuries, if not millenias, even if they were nomads, that is general area they resided, and they want to go back where they were living. Or at least be compensated for their loss and forced expulsion.
Israel could very well have been created as a secular bi-national state with equal rights for all Arabs and Jewish. But the founding members of Israel insisted on the religious nature of their state, and wanted it as a refuge for all Jews all over their world. And a good portion of them were members of the Irgun, the militias that enjoyed killing Arabs. The militia that became a founding block for what became the IDF and the now Likud party, seen as too moderate by many Jewish electors.
But it's all good, because they are killing Muslims, and Islam is an evil religion, so who cares really? If a Jewish group sing their praise to Yahwe after a Palestinian toddler is killed, it's all good. If a group of Palestinians enjoy the murder of an Israeli civilians, it means 100% of Palestinians support the Hamas.
See, it's that double standard I have a problem.
Not with the Jews or the Israelis. The difference in the treatment of both group. Both commit atrocities. And Netanyahu has been very clear in his intentions over the years. You can trace back his intent on the Palestinians since the beginning of his political career. You can find exactly what he thinks of every Israeli who doesn't share his opinions: they are traitors. And every Palestinian who oppose Israel's policies is a terrorist.
This, I disagree with.
I may disagree with the left on a lot of thing, but I'll respect their right to protest peacefully and not get sniped for it.
When people get sniped simply for giving assistance to an injured person, we're entering Russian's territory of evilness. We're no longer in a democratic state. And when you start calling your opponents traitors and blame them for your own failures to act as a leader, you're no better than the little orange shit mounting coups and trying to avoid prison in your country.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 13, 2023, 10:22:42 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 13, 2023, 06:55:54 PMWhere are they going to live?
In Gaza. You seem confused, frankly.
Try America. (https://www.ynetnews.com/article/bkksv3eet)
You seem confused, frankly.
Viper, Israel is declared a Jewish state on the basis of nationality. Just like the Arabs have their states based on Arab as the Nationality.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 14, 2023, 08:09:16 PMViper, Israel is declared a Jewish state on the basis of nationality. Just like the Arabs have their states based on Arab as the Nationality.
You hate nationalism, but you make an exception here. :)
There's an Israeli nationality now.
There could be a Palestinian nationality if there was a state of Palestine, like a state of Israel. But OvB said there should not be a state of Palestine. The same position as the government as Israel. I guess he'll volunteer to take in some Palestinian refugees in his city? :)
The fact that you thought Israel was founded on religion and is some kind of religious country (it's like 54% secular) explains so much.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 14, 2023, 08:42:42 PMThe fact that you thought Israel was founded on religion and is some kind of religious country (it's like 54% secular) explains so much.
I'll get to that in a moment. First, on the border question:
QuoteThe borders were not specified in the Declaration, although its 14th paragraph indicated a willingness to cooperate in the implementation of the UN Partition Plan. The original draft had declared that the borders would be decided by the UN partition plan. While this was supported by Rosen and Bechor-Shalom Sheetrit, it was opposed by Ben-Gurion and Zisling, with Ben-Gurion stating, "We accepted the UN Resolution, but the Arabs did not. They are preparing to make war on us. If we defeat them and capture western Galilee or territory on both sides of the road to Jerusalem, these areas will become part of the state. Why should we obligate ourselves to accept boundaries that in any case the Arabs don't accept?"[8] The inclusion of the designation of borders in the text was dropped after the provisional government of Israel, the Minhelet HaAm, voted 5–4 against it.[9] The Revisionists, committed to a Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan River (that is, including Transjordan), wanted the phrase "within its historic borders" included, but were unsuccessful.
There was a clear intent from the start to grab as much territory as they could, with a faction wanting all of Palestine for themselves.
QuoteReligion
The second major issue was over the inclusion of God in the last section of the document, with the draft using the phrase "and placing our trust in the Almighty". The two rabbis, Shapira and Yehuda Leib Maimon, argued for its inclusion, saying that it could not be omitted, with Shapira supporting the wording "God of Israel" or "the Almighty and Redeemer of Israel".[8] It was strongly opposed by Zisling, a member of the secularist Mapam. In the end the phrase "Rock of Israel" was used, which could be interpreted as either referring to God, or the land of Eretz Israel, Ben-Gurion saying "Each of us, in his own way, believes in the 'Rock of Israel' as he conceives it. I should like to make one request: Don't let me put this phrase to a vote." Although its use was still opposed by Zisling, the phrase was accepted without a vote.
QuoteOther items
At the meeting on 14 May, several other members of Moetzet HaAm suggested additions to the document. Meir Vilner wanted it to denounce the British Mandate and military but Sharett said it was out of place. Meir Argov pushed to mention the Displaced Persons camps in Europe and to guarantee freedom of language. Ben-Gurion agreed with the latter but noted that Hebrew should be the main language of the state.
The debate over wording did not end completely even after the Declaration had been made. Declaration signer Meir David Loewenstein later claimed, "It ignored our sole right to Eretz Israel, which is based on the covenant of the Lord with Abraham, our father, and repeated promises in the Tanach. It ignored the aliya of the Ramban and the students of the Vilna Gaon and the Ba'al Shem Tov, and the [rights of] Jews who lived in the 'Old Yishuv'."[16]
QuoteIsrael is a gender-neutral name of Hebrew origin. Derived from the Hebrew Yisrael, it means "God perseveres"
Everything references religion. It evolved as a secular state, because, well, people evolve over time. I'm sure there are many more atheists today living in Israel than there were in 1948, as I'm sure we would find in France, Canada or the US. Doesn't changed the fact that the Pledge of Allegiance of the US includes the phrase
One Nation under God, that the Canadian Constitution has a reference to God and so on.
That does not scream of secularity.
Jewish being both a cultural identity and a religion, Israel was founded as both. Any person born of a Jewish mother who has converted to another religion is no longer considered Jewish and is therefore considered a foreigner in the eyes of Israel. While any other Jewish person may freely enter Israel and immediately become a citizen, no matter the origin or the language spoken, any other person must live there 3 years as a permanent resident and demonstrate proficiency in Hebrew. Messianic Jews are also not considered Jewish, for the purpose of this law, unlike other branches of Judaism, but are considered Christians. Any non Jewish person who becomes an Israeli citizen must immediately renounce all other citizenship.
Palestinians married to Israelis can not become naturalized citizens of Israel. Ever.
Any other Muslim willing to immigrate to Israel could do so in only two ways:
1) Renounce his faith and convert to Judaism before moving to Israel
2) Marry and Israel citizen
So much for secularity, eh?
You have to be careful about what people say about a country and what happens in practice.
The US may have a huge problem with religion, but it won't discriminate on who it admits based on religion. If I'm a Canadian citizen of Islamic faith, all things being equal, I stand equal chance of being admitted to the US as a Canadian citizen of Christian faith. In fact, I doubt it's even a question when I apply for an immigration visa.
Viper, they lost the wars.
We lost the wars too and we paid the price of them until the 70s.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 14, 2023, 09:41:49 PMViper, they lost the wars.
We lost the wars too and we paid the price of them until the 70s.
I don't think the war is over, that's the problem. And Israel can't claim to have moral superiority if that's how they want to act, since there are still Palestinians getting chased from their homes.
Quote from: viper37 on November 14, 2023, 10:07:34 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on November 14, 2023, 09:41:49 PMViper, they lost the wars.
We lost the wars too and we paid the price of them until the 70s.
I don't think the war is over, that's the problem. And Israel can't claim to have moral superiority if that's how they want to act, since there are still Palestinians getting chased from their homes.
Yeah, the Muslims don't think the war is over either. There are still jews after all. And after that there's still Christians and others that haven't submitted the Muslim rule. Dar-al-harb eh.
I am really hating the dishonest ambiguity around this main hospital. If the people calling it a crime and pinning it on Israel, then say it clearly that they think the IDF is blockading a hospital and taking potshots at it for fun or to starve everyone inside to death.
Because if that is not the case, then it means the IDF has surrounded the hospital because Hamas is inside there. In which case the situation is entirely Hamas' fault.
I don't know if I posted this before, but the 7 October attack, or rather the popular world response to it has really radicalised me on this conflict. Over the last several years I was growing quite disdainful of Israel seeing their own Orban in charge and the aggressive settlements etc. Well that is now all gone. I still despise Netanyahu obviously, but the world response to 7 October has very clearly shown that the siege mentality of Israel is 100% justified. One of if not THE worst terror attack in modern history, and it is forgotten by most of world opinion in a matter of hours. Worse, it made huge swats of various Western (!) European societies to come out and rally against ISRAEL for mounting a military response to prevent such an attack happening again. Making the streets of London an other major cities look like old news reports from various Middle East countries when Big Baddie Israel did something wrong.
I am sorry I just cannot stomach this. Nobody, and I mean literally nobody on the so-called pro-Palestinian side is calling for Palestinians to rally against Hamas, no mention of the shocking deliberate massacre of civilians in Israel, with Hamas publicly declaring they are to continue doing these attacks when and as long as they are able. Nothing. Infuriating double standards.
It has made me reevaluate my thoughts on Israeli occupation since 1967 as well. You know, there's always a lot of talk about how illegal that is, what there is no talk about is what it was a response to - the well established fact that it was a preventive war preventing an Arab offensive against them. I cannot look at this latest massacre (to ignore all the rocket attacks etc) and say "oh yeah they should totally let Hamas creep up on them and retreat to 1948 borders".
Just screw this. The Muslim world (which has now quite clearly showed that it is well present as a cultural bloc inside European countries) has been treating the existence of Israel as a cultural/civilisational conflict since 1948. I am increasingly willing to accept their point of view.
Yeah, I'm feeling about the same.
This shit-show actually implies that all the racist scum were correctish back in the day. Letting in a large number of middle eastern muslims into our midst might have been a gigantic mistake. And I hate that.
Quote from: Threviel on November 15, 2023, 07:01:15 AMYeah, I'm feeling about the same.
This shit-show actually implies that all the racist scum were correctish back in the day. Letting in a large number of middle eastern muslims into our midst might have been a gigantic mistake. And I hate that.
Hamas are scum = all muslims are scum?
Quote from: Josquius on November 15, 2023, 07:53:01 AMQuote from: Threviel on November 15, 2023, 07:01:15 AMYeah, I'm feeling about the same.
This shit-show actually implies that all the racist scum were correctish back in the day. Letting in a large number of middle eastern muslims into our midst might have been a gigantic mistake. And I hate that.
Hamas are scum = all muslims are scum?
I mean he used the word scum on racists hating on Muslims.
But speaking for myself at least, what I find disturbing is the masses of people (I am assuming not nearly all who think like this bothered to march on the street so their real numbers must be far higher) who are perfectly willing to overlook atrocities by Hamas which were far more vicious and personal yet great in scale, just because it was perpetrated by Palestinians against Jews. And it is hard not to see that this is largely (admittedly not exclusively) based on sectarian/religious loyalties.
Quote from: Josquius on November 15, 2023, 07:53:01 AMQuote from: Threviel on November 15, 2023, 07:01:15 AMYeah, I'm feeling about the same.
This shit-show actually implies that all the racist scum were correctish back in the day. Letting in a large number of middle eastern muslims into our midst might have been a gigantic mistake. And I hate that.
Hamas are scum = all muslims are scum?
No, the vast overwhelming majority of every human group are decent fellows just trying to live their best lives. But there seems to be a sufficient amount of religious fanatics in that group that Swedish politicians are discussing and potentially implementing laws to limit our ability to criticize Islam/Muslims. And that is a dangerous route to go down.
Also they brought with them a gigantic increase in anti-semitism, enough that jews are more or less persecuted in certain cities.
I'm with Tamas and Threviel, although I had less distance to cover. I used to reflexively push back on the victim mentality of some Israeli supporters, but when I realized that the Hamas attack was a PR disaster for Israel and not for Hamas, I also realized that they were mostly right all along.
I now mentally classify the anti-Israelis in the West the same way I classify pro-Russians: either they're useful idiots who have fallen prey to effective propaganda, or they're awful people sharing the values with the awful people they support, or they support awful people because they cannot break free of their tribal allegiances.
Yeah, it's like the saying with nazis. If you willingly share a table with a nazi there are two nazis sitting there.
There's only so many times one can spread Hamas/anti-semite propaganda without being seen as a supporter.
It's a fundamental flaw in the anti-colonial/PC/progressive/woke mindset. It's Manichean, either you're pure good or you're pure evil. There is no gray.
A quick way to clear that up is a simple decision tree:
Is a person or entity Muslim?
If yes-->They are pure evil.
If no, it could be some shade of gray.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VxmqUqKYqI
Phone conversation between IDF and Gaza Health Director.
Could be fake I guess.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 15, 2023, 11:47:30 AMA quick way to clear that up is a simple decision tree:
Is a person or entity Muslim?
If yes-->They are pure evil.
If no, it could be some shade of gray.
:rolleyes: Way to inject rationality into my argument, mate.
Quote from: Tamas on November 15, 2023, 11:54:31 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 15, 2023, 11:47:30 AMA quick way to clear that up is a simple decision tree:
Is a person or entity Muslim?
If yes-->They are pure evil.
If no, it could be some shade of gray.
:rolleyes: Way to inject rationality into my argument, mate.
As much as some on the other team sucks, some on your team suck too :P
The Middle East, where rationality goes to die.,
I'm not as angry as some of you guys and I'm not that supportive of Israel but the idea that Jews no longer feel safe in England makes me feel sick and ashamed.
A dynamic I wasn't aware of - apparently Israeli generals and other military leaders are aligned with different political parties. And apparently Nethanyahu is leaving managing the war almost entirely with generals who are aligned with him politically.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 15, 2023, 11:47:30 AMA quick way to clear that up is a simple decision tree:
Is a person or entity Muslim?
If yes-->They are pure evil.
If no, it could be some shade of gray.
Here I try and struggle with an argument that muslim extremism is a difficult problem, and I get this kind of supporting comments...
There are no monolithic blocks of evil anywhere, it's all a grey soup where some things stick out with a higher probability to suck. Like a lot of religious extremism. Or political extremism.
And it's always a social issue. Lots muslims suck because the ones coming from poor shithole countries with poor education and lots of endemic violence have a higher probability to suck. Christians from the same area suck just as much.
Quote from: Threviel on November 15, 2023, 12:50:47 PMAnd it's always a social issue. Lots muslims suck because the ones coming from poor shithole countries with poor education and lots of endemic violence have a higher probability to suck. Christians from the same area suck just as much.
Yes, I think this is an important point.
Quote from: Threviel on November 15, 2023, 12:50:47 PMAnd it's always a social issue. Lots muslims suck because the ones coming from poor shithole countries with poor education and lots of endemic violence have a higher probability to suck. Christians from the same area suck just as much.
A bit harsh on Yorkshire there.
QuoteThe Telegraph
Iran tells Hamas it will not enter the war with Israel
Our Foreign Staff
Wed, November 15, 2023 at 2:03 PM EST·5 min read
Iran's supreme leader told the head of Hamas in a face-to-face meeting in Tehran that his country would not enter the war with Israel and accused the terror group of not giving any prior warning of the Oct 7 attacks.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told Ismail Haniyeh that Iran – a longtime backer of Hamas – would continue to lend the group its political and moral support, but would not intervene directly, according to three Iranian and Hamas officials with knowledge of the discussions who asked to remain anonymous.
The supreme leader pressed Haniyeh to silence those voices in the Palestinian group publicly calling for Iran and its powerful Lebanese ally Hezbollah to join the battle against Israel in full force, a Hamas official told Reuters.
Hezbollah, too, was taken by surprise by Hamas's devastating assault last month that killed 1,200 Israelis. Its fighters were not even on alert in villages near the border that were frontlines in its 2006 war with Israel, and had to be rapidly called up, three sources close to the Lebanese group said.
"We woke up to a war," said a Hezbollah commander.
The unfolding crisis marks the first time that the so-called 'axis of resistance' – a military alliance built by Iran over four decades to oppose Israeli and American power in the Middle East – has mobilised on multiple fronts at the same time.
Hezbollah has engaged in the heaviest clashes with Israel for almost 20 years. Iran-backed militias have targeted US forces in Iraq and Syria. Yemen's Houthis have launched missiles and drones at Israel.
The conflict is also testing the limits of the regional coalition whose members – which include the Syrian government, Hezbollah, Hamas and other militant groups from Iraq to Yemen – have differing priorities and domestic challenges.
Mohanad Hage Ali, an expert on Hezbollah at the Carnegie Middle East Centre think-tank in Beirut, said Hamas's Oct 7 assault on Israel had left its axis partners facing tough choices in confronting an adversary with far superior firepower.
"When you wake up the bear with such an attack, it's quite difficult for your allies to stand in the same position as you."
Hamas, the ruling group of Gaza, is fighting for its survival against an avenging Israel, which vows to wipe it out and has launched a retaliatory onslaught on the tiny enclave that has killed more than 11,000 Palestinians.
On Oct 7, Mohammed Deif, Hamas's military commander, called on its axis allies to join the struggle. "Our brothers in the Islamic resistance in Lebanon, Iran, Yemen, Iraq and Syria, this is the day when your resistance unites with your people in Palestine," he said in an audio message.
Hints of frustration surfaced in subsequent public statements by Hamas leaders including Khaled Meshaal, who in an Oct 16 TV interview thanked Hezbollah for its actions thus far but said "the battle requires more" .
Nonetheless, alliance leader Iran will not directly intervene in the conflict unless it is itself attacked by Israel or the US, according to six officials with direct knowledge of Tehran's thinking who declined to be named due to the sensitive nature of the matter.
Instead, Iran's clerical rulers plan to continue using their axis network of armed allies, including Hezbollah, to launch rocket and drone attacks on Israeli and American targets across the Middle East, the officials said.
The strategy is a calibrated effort to demonstrate solidarity for Hamas in Gaza and stretch Israeli forces without becoming engaged in a direct confrontation with Israel that could draw in the US, they added.
"This is their way of trying to create deterrence," said Dennis Ross, a former senior US diplomat specialising in the Middle East who now works at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy think-tank. "A way of saying: 'Look, as long as you don't attack us, this is the way it will remain. But if you attack us, everything changes'."
Iran has repeatedly said that all members of the alliance make their own decisions independently.
The Iranian foreign ministry did not respond to a request for comment about its response to the crisis and the role of the 'axis of resistance', a term of disputed origin that has been used by Iranian officials to describe the coalition.
Hamas did not immediately respond to questions sent to Haniyeh's media adviser, while Hezbollah also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Hezbollah, the most powerful group in the axis, boasting 100,000 fighters, has exchanged fire with Israeli forces across the Lebanon-Israel border on an almost daily basis since Hamas went to war with Israel and more than 70 of its fighters have been killed.
Yet, like its backer Iran, Hezbollah has avoided an all-out confrontation.
The group has calibrated its attacks in a way that has kept the violence largely contained to a narrow strip of territory at the border, even as it has escalated those strikes in recent days, according to the people familiar with its thinking.
One of the sources said Hamas wanted Hezbollah to strike deeper into Israel with its massive arsenal of rockets but that Hezbollah believed this would lead Israel to lay waste to Lebanon without halting its attack on Gaza.
Hezbollah, which is also a political movement deeply involved in Lebanese government affairs, knows Lebanon can ill afford another war with Israel, more than four years into a financial crisis that has driven up poverty and hollowed out the country's governing institutions.
Lebanon took years to rebuild from the 2006 war, during which Israeli bombardment pounded the Hezbollah-controlled south of the country and destroyed swathes of its stronghold in the southern suburbs of the capital Beirut.
Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said in a Nov 3 speech that Hamas had kept its attack on Israel a secret from its allies and this had ensured its success and not "upset anyone" in the axis. Hezbollah attacks at the Israeli border were unprecedented and amounted to "a real battle", he said.
This sounds quite a bit like Iran saying "well, we aren't going to back a loser, good luck Hamas."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2023, 11:26:10 AMIt's a fundamental flaw in the anti-colonial/PC/progressive/woke mindset. It's Manichean, either you're pure good or you're pure evil. There is no gray.
I guess you just failed to read what people are posting in this thread. What is the fundamental flaw with people like Otto. Is it the same flaw, a different flaw or are you guys just really oversimplifying something to make yourselves in your position sound better?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2023, 04:07:11 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2023, 11:26:10 AMIt's a fundamental flaw in the anti-colonial/PC/progressive/woke mindset. It's Manichean, either you're pure good or you're pure evil. There is no gray.
I guess you just failed to read what people are posting in this thread. What is the fundamental flaw with people like Otto. Is it the same flaw, a different flaw or are you guys just really oversimplifying something to make yourselves in your position sound better?
It's a big problem with the gung ho Israel can do no wrong mindset for sure. Projecting onto anyone with an opinion that deviates from the line that they're the zealots who can see no grey.
Quote from: Josquius on November 15, 2023, 04:15:40 PMIt's a big problem with the gung ho Israel can do no wrong mindset for sure. Projecting onto anyone with an opinion that deviates from the line that they're the zealots who can see no grey.
These people suck.
Who the hell are they?
Quote from: Josquius on November 15, 2023, 04:15:40 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2023, 04:07:11 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2023, 11:26:10 AMIt's a fundamental flaw in the anti-colonial/PC/progressive/woke mindset. It's Manichean, either you're pure good or you're pure evil. There is no gray.
I guess you just failed to read what people are posting in this thread. What is the fundamental flaw with people like Otto. Is it the same flaw, a different flaw or are you guys just really oversimplifying something to make yourselves in your position sound better?
It's a big problem with the gung ho Israel can do no wrong mindset for sure. Projecting onto anyone with an opinion that deviates from the line that they're the zealots who can see no grey.
Who out there is saying "Israel can do no wrong"?
Essentially no one in history has ever said Israel can do no wrong.
I can see some of those settler freaks saying it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2023, 04:34:05 PMI can see some of those settler freaks saying it.
Then they are shitty Jews.
The basic narrative of the Old Testament is that Judah and Israel constantly screw up and need to be set straight by God.
I don't think anyone here is actually supporting the settler position.
Who here supports the Hamas position? Name names, people. :contract:
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 15, 2023, 01:52:34 AMYeah, the Muslims don't think the war is over either. There are still jews after all. And after that there's still Christians and others that haven't submitted the Muslim rule. Dar-al-harb eh.
There will always be Muslims thinking like that.
And there are many Jews who think all of Palestine should belong to them and only to them, no Arabs, no Muslims.
And there are many Americans who believe America should be a Christian theocracy.
That does not mean we are headed straight for a religious war in the coming year. We should be cautious and keep these people away from power at all costs, just like Nazis and Communists.
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2023, 04:30:39 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 15, 2023, 04:15:40 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2023, 04:07:11 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2023, 11:26:10 AMIt's a fundamental flaw in the anti-colonial/PC/progressive/woke mindset. It's Manichean, either you're pure good or you're pure evil. There is no gray.
I guess you just failed to read what people are posting in this thread. What is the fundamental flaw with people like Otto. Is it the same flaw, a different flaw or are you guys just really oversimplifying something to make yourselves in your position sound better?
It's a big problem with the gung ho Israel can do no wrong mindset for sure. Projecting onto anyone with an opinion that deviates from the line that they're the zealots who can see no grey.
Who out there is saying "Israel can do no wrong"?
Not claiming it as a quote.
But its very much the vibe of a lot of posts on here. Big reluctance to admit that this is a cunts on both sides situation.
Elsewhere on the web of course its much stronger.
Only one side of cunts went into the villages of the other cunts with assault rifles and massacred 1400 civilians made videos of it and celebrated themselves, though. The other cunts might be too unwilling to die themselves in hand-to-hand combat on the first cunts' turf instead of causing the first cunts' civilians to die in bombings, but the two are not exactly the same levels of crime no matter what the far-left tribe is saying.
I'm sure that out of 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust, at least one was a jerk. Why is there such a reluctance to admit that both sides had cunts in that incident?
Quote from: Tamas on November 16, 2023, 08:40:50 AMOnly one side of cunts went into the villages of the other cunts with assault rifles and massacred 1400 civilians made videos of it and celebrated themselves, though. The other cunts might be too unwilling to die themselves in hand-to-hand combat on the first cunts' turf instead of causing the first cunts' civilians to die in bombings, but the two are not exactly the same levels of crime no matter what the far-left tribe is saying.
They're not the same no. They're quite different.
I don't see where one brutal and horrible act by a small number of Palestinians somehow nullifies decades of generally far more low key oppression by Israel.
Quote from: DGuller on November 16, 2023, 08:57:45 AMI'm sure that out of 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust, at least one was a jerk. Why is there such a reluctance to admit that both sides had cunts in that incident?
I'm not sure who you are saying are the Jews in this analogy. I guess Israel?.. As it does work better the other way.
Heh? I do think we're all very aware of the shortcomings of Israel. But I also do think that most of us can differentiate the actions of the state of Israel with the actions of the inhabitants of the Israel.
Edit: And with that I mean, the state of Gaza is a horrible murderous dictatorship and the state of Israel is not.
QuoteI don't see where one brutal and horrible act by a small number of Palestinians somehow nullifies decades of generally far more low key oppression by Israel.
Well, Hamas was founded in 1987 apparently. Seeing how they mean their stated goal of ending Israel, I'd say the terror attack at the very least retrospectively nullifies any oppression aimed at containing Hamas since 1987.
Quote from: Tamas on November 16, 2023, 09:46:19 AMQuoteI don't see where one brutal and horrible act by a small number of Palestinians somehow nullifies decades of generally far more low key oppression by Israel.
Well, Hamas was founded in 1987 apparently. Seeing how they mean their stated goal of ending Israel, I'd say the terror attack at the very least retrospectively nullifies any oppression aimed at containing Hamas since 1987.
.
Except nobody supports Hamas here. At all.
Supporting the Palestinians is not the same as supporting Hamas.
Also worth noting you can say all the horrid genocidal shit you want... The numbers clearly show Palestine has been the losing side this past 50 + years.
What about Gazaans, are they Hamas or Palestinians in this scenario?
Yes, they lost all the wars and Palestine was abandoned by all it's allies.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 16, 2023, 10:20:01 AMWhat about Gazaans, are they Hamas or Palestinians in this scenario?
Yes, they lost all the wars and Palestine was abandoned by all it's allies.
Mostly not part of Hamas considering literally half of them are kids.
Quote from: Josquius on November 16, 2023, 10:03:35 AMQuote from: Tamas on November 16, 2023, 09:46:19 AMQuoteI don't see where one brutal and horrible act by a small number of Palestinians somehow nullifies decades of generally far more low key oppression by Israel.
Well, Hamas was founded in 1987 apparently. Seeing how they mean their stated goal of ending Israel, I'd say the terror attack at the very least retrospectively nullifies any oppression aimed at containing Hamas since 1987.
.
Except nobody supports Hamas here. At all.
Supporting the Palestinians is not the same as supporting Hamas.
Also worth noting you can say all the horrid genocidal shit you want... The numbers clearly show Palestine has been the losing side this past 50 + years.
I was not saying you or anybody else support Hamas on this forum. You asked if the October 7 attack nullifies some of the oppressive shit Israel did. I said yes to that.
Your last point I am not getting. Losing a war or seven doesn't make you the good guy.
Quote from: Tamas on November 16, 2023, 10:24:40 AMQuote from: Josquius on November 16, 2023, 10:03:35 AMQuote from: Tamas on November 16, 2023, 09:46:19 AMQuoteI don't see where one brutal and horrible act by a small number of Palestinians somehow nullifies decades of generally far more low key oppression by Israel.
Well, Hamas was founded in 1987 apparently. Seeing how they mean their stated goal of ending Israel, I'd say the terror attack at the very least retrospectively nullifies any oppression aimed at containing Hamas since 1987.
.
Except nobody supports Hamas here. At all.
Supporting the Palestinians is not the same as supporting Hamas.
Also worth noting you can say all the horrid genocidal shit you want... The numbers clearly show Palestine has been the losing side this past 50 + years.
I was not saying you or anybody else support Hamas on this forum. You asked if the October 7 attack nullifies some of the oppressive shit Israel did. I said yes to that.
Your last point I am not getting. Losing a war or seven doesn't make you the good guy.
My point is Hamas are like an angry old man shouting at clouds. This recent attack, the worst in Israel's history, even as horrible as it was on a human level, was no serious threat to the survival of Israel- the goal of Hamas being to eliminate this.
Israel might not be screaming death to the muslims (well, most of them) but with the sheer power imbalance that they enjoy and their rubbish handling of the situation over the past few decades, they've caused immense harm to Palestinians.
An eye for an eye makes the world blind. I don't think Israel has gained forgiveness for some of its shit because Hamas was able to hit back and murder some Israelis.
So you declare the death of Israelis insignificant in the larger picture of things, and I do the same for Palestinians. I guess that's the same position in a way, we are just on different sides of a tribal existential conflict. Except my side is a civilised democratic country with some shitty practices and a shift toward the far-right while staying democratic and fighting early autocratic tendencies within its own politics. Your side is a terrorist state.
The key point is quite simple.
Hamas rule means Gaza will remain fully blockaded. Gazans will continue to suffer extremely high rates of poverty, food insecurity, lack of even very basic political rights (even some enjoyed by Palestinians in the West Bank--who are certainly fairly limited in political rights to begin with.) Hamas rule means at some point in the future, there will be another attack, and another large war--with many thousands of Gazans dead.
The calls for cease fire are saying "we like that, and want it to continue." That may not be the intent of people calling for a cease fire--but I suspect many people calling for a cease fire have deficient capacities of logic and are minimally informed about the situation. They just float around in youth lefty circles and know that "Israel colonials and bad" and "Palestine good." They miss the fairly obvious fact that Gazan Palestinians are largely captive hostages of a brutal, evil terrorist group. Perfectly identical to the Iraqis who were captives of ISIS--and who could only be freed with a military campaign that left many tens of thousands dead (around 40,000 civilians in the Battle of Mosul alone--and note that was certainly not the only city ISIS had to be driven out of.)
There is no future for Gazans as long as Hamas remains in charge, and the people advocating a one sided cease fire that leaves Hamas in power are dooming future generations of Gazans to a repeat of this very situation.
Quote from: Josquius on November 16, 2023, 10:29:22 AMMy point is Hamas are like an angry old man shouting at clouds. This recent attack, the worst in Israel's history, even as horrible as it was on a human level, was no serious threat to the survival of Israel- the goal of Hamas being to eliminate this.
Israel might not be screaming death to the muslims (well, most of them) but with the sheer power imbalance that they enjoy and their rubbish handling of the situation over the past few decades, they've caused immense harm to Palestinians.
An eye for an eye makes the world blind. I don't think Israel has gained forgiveness for some of its shit because Hamas was able to hit back and murder some Israelis.
You've really outdone yourself in terrible analogies Jos.
Israel is not engaging in an "eye for an eye" here. They're not going "well we'll just murder 1400 Gazans and call it even". They are attempting to entirely root out Hamas, a terrorist organization, from Gaza while minimizing casualties (but accepting there may be some).
Quote from: viper37 on November 10, 2023, 04:15:37 PMOvB is gonna be pissed off at Netanyahu for committing blood libel at Israel.
Grumbler is going to be angry too.
Yi and Tamas are gonna be so mad.
I'm wondering if you have the self-awareness to understand how badly your stupid takes, telling other people what they will think, is undermining any credibility you have left on this topic.
Quote from: Tamas on November 16, 2023, 10:58:17 AMSo you declare the death of Israelis insignificant in the larger picture of things, and I do the same for Palestinians. I guess that's the same position in a way, we are just on different sides of a tribal existential conflict. Except my side is a civilised democratic country with some shitty practices and a shift toward the far-right while staying democratic and fighting early autocratic tendencies within its own politics. Your side is a terrorist state.
No. My side is the Palestinian people. A people whose fundamental survival is actively under threat. A people whose children are being killed in large numbers on an ongoing basis. Who are steadily having their land taken from them and being pushed into an ever smaller area whilst their plummeting living standards leads to an increased birth rate. Not to mention a large chunk of them being under the rule of a group of religious terrorists.
Hamas are one of the shitty side effects of the Palestinian situation, not the instigators of it.
Quote from: Josquius on November 16, 2023, 11:47:17 AMQuote from: Tamas on November 16, 2023, 10:58:17 AMSo you declare the death of Israelis insignificant in the larger picture of things, and I do the same for Palestinians. I guess that's the same position in a way, we are just on different sides of a tribal existential conflict. Except my side is a civilised democratic country with some shitty practices and a shift toward the far-right while staying democratic and fighting early autocratic tendencies within its own politics. Your side is a terrorist state.
No. My side is the Palestinian people. A people whose fundamental survival is actively under threat. A people whose children are being killed in large numbers on an ongoing basis. Who are steadily having their land taken from them and being pushed into an ever smaller area whilst their plummeting living standards leads to an increased birth rate. Not to mention a large chunk of them being under the rule of a group of religious terrorists.
Hamas are one of the shitty side effects of the Palestinian situation, not the instigators of it.
I feel like this take removes any agency from Palestinian people, either Hamas or the population at large.
Quote from: Josquius on November 16, 2023, 11:47:17 AMQuote from: Tamas on November 16, 2023, 10:58:17 AMSo you declare the death of Israelis insignificant in the larger picture of things, and I do the same for Palestinians. I guess that's the same position in a way, we are just on different sides of a tribal existential conflict. Except my side is a civilised democratic country with some shitty practices and a shift toward the far-right while staying democratic and fighting early autocratic tendencies within its own politics. Your side is a terrorist state.
No. My side is the Palestinian people. A people whose fundamental survival is actively under threat. A people whose children are being killed in large numbers on an ongoing basis. Who are steadily having their land taken from them and being pushed into an ever smaller area whilst their plummeting living standards leads to an increased birth rate. Not to mention a large chunk of them being under the rule of a group of religious terrorists.
Hamas are one of the shitty side effects of the Palestinian situation, not the instigators of it.
Your side is the Palestinian people, so your position is they should remain enslaved to Hamas?
Quote from: Barrister on November 16, 2023, 11:50:39 AMQuote from: Josquius on November 16, 2023, 11:47:17 AMQuote from: Tamas on November 16, 2023, 10:58:17 AMSo you declare the death of Israelis insignificant in the larger picture of things, and I do the same for Palestinians. I guess that's the same position in a way, we are just on different sides of a tribal existential conflict. Except my side is a civilised democratic country with some shitty practices and a shift toward the far-right while staying democratic and fighting early autocratic tendencies within its own politics. Your side is a terrorist state.
No. My side is the Palestinian people. A people whose fundamental survival is actively under threat. A people whose children are being killed in large numbers on an ongoing basis. Who are steadily having their land taken from them and being pushed into an ever smaller area whilst their plummeting living standards leads to an increased birth rate. Not to mention a large chunk of them being under the rule of a group of religious terrorists.
Hamas are one of the shitty side effects of the Palestinian situation, not the instigators of it.
I feel like this take removes any agency from Palestinian people, either Hamas or the population at large.
"Agency" is such a loaded word. Very commonly used by conservatives to dismiss attempts to understand and tackle the root causes of crime.
Of course the people who end up joining Hamas and murdering people are personally entirely to blame for their poor choices.
But we shouldn't pretend they were given all the opportunities of a middle class westerner yet still decided terrorism was the option for them.
Quote from: Josquius on November 16, 2023, 11:52:47 AM"Agency" is such a loaded word. Very commonly used by conservatives to dismiss attempts to understand and tackle the root causes of crime.
Of course the people who end up joining Hamas and murdering people are personally entirely to blame for their poor choices.
But we shouldn't pretend they were given all the opportunities of a middle class westerner yet still decided terrorism was the option for them.
Actually I think it's much more a term on the left, which is why I chose it.
Understanding "root causes" can be a useful exercise, but you absolutely can't end there.
I saw on Twitter that there's been a Tik Tok trend of people reading Osama Bin Laden's "Letter to America" and deciding that Bin Laden had a point.
I haven't read the 2002 letter myself, but to the extent you think he had a point - it never justified the murder of 3000 people on 9-11.
https://www.newsweek.com/osama-bin-laden-peace-warrior-article-resurfaces-tiktok-1844380
The ObL letter highlights a common reality--no country or no 'side' is beyond valid criticism. The Soviets during the Cold War and even the Nazis during WWII put out critiques of American society, for example. Many of them valid.
Them being valid in no way diminished the many misdeeds and outright evil of the Soviet and Nazi regimes.
Quote from: Barrister on November 16, 2023, 12:00:31 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 16, 2023, 11:52:47 AM"Agency" is such a loaded word. Very commonly used by conservatives to dismiss attempts to understand and tackle the root causes of crime.
Of course the people who end up joining Hamas and murdering people are personally entirely to blame for their poor choices.
But we shouldn't pretend they were given all the opportunities of a middle class westerner yet still decided terrorism was the option for them.
Actually I think it's much more a term on the left, which is why I chose it.
Understanding "root causes" can be a useful exercise, but you absolutely can't end there.
I saw on Twitter that there's been a Tik Tok trend of people reading Osama Bin Laden's "Letter to America" and deciding that Bin Laden had a point.
I haven't read the 2002 letter myself, but to the extent you think he had a point - it never justified the murder of 3000 people on 9-11.
https://www.newsweek.com/osama-bin-laden-peace-warrior-article-resurfaces-tiktok-1844380
I don't get your point.
Successful extremists usually do have some valid concerns. Its how they work. Whether its the US quest for oil propping up dodgy dictators or the decline of heavy industry and how hard it is to be a young working class guy in poor parts of the west. The extremists successfully identify the problems. They then offer simple shit non-solutions.
Its like the "Hitler was a vegetarian" bit. Just because an arse-hole has a view doesn't make that view instantly wrong .
Yeah, but a nice guy having an asshole view doesn't make that view nice either.
Quote from: Josquius on November 16, 2023, 12:07:37 PMQuote from: Barrister on November 16, 2023, 12:00:31 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 16, 2023, 11:52:47 AM"Agency" is such a loaded word. Very commonly used by conservatives to dismiss attempts to understand and tackle the root causes of crime.
Of course the people who end up joining Hamas and murdering people are personally entirely to blame for their poor choices.
But we shouldn't pretend they were given all the opportunities of a middle class westerner yet still decided terrorism was the option for them.
Actually I think it's much more a term on the left, which is why I chose it.
Understanding "root causes" can be a useful exercise, but you absolutely can't end there.
I saw on Twitter that there's been a Tik Tok trend of people reading Osama Bin Laden's "Letter to America" and deciding that Bin Laden had a point.
I haven't read the 2002 letter myself, but to the extent you think he had a point - it never justified the murder of 3000 people on 9-11.
https://www.newsweek.com/osama-bin-laden-peace-warrior-article-resurfaces-tiktok-1844380
I don't get your point.
Successful extremists usually do have some valid concerns. Its how they work. Whether its the US quest for oil propping up dodgy dictators or the decline of heavy industry and how hard it is to be a young working class guy in poor parts of the west. The extremists successfully identify the problems. They then offer simple shit non-solutions.
Its like the "Hitler was a vegetarian" bit. Just because an arse-hole has a view doesn't make that view instantly wrong .
you seem to assume you're not part of the extremists...
Quote from: Josquius on November 16, 2023, 12:07:37 PMQuote from: Barrister on November 16, 2023, 12:00:31 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 16, 2023, 11:52:47 AM"Agency" is such a loaded word. Very commonly used by conservatives to dismiss attempts to understand and tackle the root causes of crime.
Of course the people who end up joining Hamas and murdering people are personally entirely to blame for their poor choices.
But we shouldn't pretend they were given all the opportunities of a middle class westerner yet still decided terrorism was the option for them.
Actually I think it's much more a term on the left, which is why I chose it.
Understanding "root causes" can be a useful exercise, but you absolutely can't end there.
I saw on Twitter that there's been a Tik Tok trend of people reading Osama Bin Laden's "Letter to America" and deciding that Bin Laden had a point.
I haven't read the 2002 letter myself, but to the extent you think he had a point - it never justified the murder of 3000 people on 9-11.
https://www.newsweek.com/osama-bin-laden-peace-warrior-article-resurfaces-tiktok-1844380
I don't get your point.
Successful extremists usually do have some valid concerns. Its how they work. Whether its the US quest for oil propping up dodgy dictators or the decline of heavy industry and how hard it is to be a young working class guy in poor parts of the west. The extremists successfully identify the problems. They then offer simple shit non-solutions.
Its like the "Hitler was a vegetarian" bit. Just because an arse-hole has a view doesn't make that view instantly wrong .
So let's go back to what I was objecting to:
Quote from: JosquisNo. My side is the Palestinian people. A people whose fundamental survival is actively under threat. A people whose children are being killed in large numbers on an ongoing basis. Who are steadily having their land taken from them and being pushed into an ever smaller area whilst their plummeting living standards leads to an increased birth rate. Not to mention a large chunk of them being under the rule of a group of religious terrorists.
Hamas are one of the shitty side effects of the Palestinian situation, not the instigators of it.
By saying Hamas is just a "shitty side effect of the Palestinian situation" you're saying that Hamas's terrorism was inevitable, and that Palestinians had no choice but to go and murder all those Israeli civilians.
I totally reject that assertion. There is always a choice. There are always other solutions. To deny that is to deny humans agency.
If an oppressed person is shown a "simple shit non-solutions" they always have the choice to not take that solution.
You know what my job is. Most of the people who come before the court have some kind of disadvantaged background. Heck some of them come from literally refugee camps before coming to Canada. Such a disadvantaged background is not ignored - it is taken into account, often in a reduced sentence, but it never ever excuses the behaviour.
Hey everyone!
Been lurking the past little while, thought I'd add my two cents worth about something I've been considering.
It seems to me, from a historical perspective, that the Palestinians and Israelis are in many ways mirror images: two dueling ethnic nationalisms, both arising at around the same time, both benefiting from a certain amount of foreign backing. Both have extremists who are pretty extreme. Yet one group has been largely successful, and the other not. What factors explain this?
No doubt there are plenty, but to my mind, the two most significant are the following.
First, the Zionists were able to reign in their extremists when it really counted. Way back in the 1940s, there were plenty of extremist Zionists, such as the Irgun, who engaged in terrorism (though pretty minor by modern standards). The more mainstream Zionists, the Jewish Agency, decided that allowing these guys to run their own policy was a bad idea; it was WW2, and the Agency threw its lot in with the Allies, despite the Brits cracking down on Jewish immigration; they ended up helping the Brits suppress the Irgun etc, with violence (an episode known as the "saison" or "hunting season"). Many in the Irgun, having been forced underground, emerged to join Israeli politics ... but the battle had already been won.
This was absolutely pivotal for Zionist success. In the coming war for independence, the Zionists would have only one leadership, with the extremists basically out.
Israel has had plenty of trouble with extremists ever since (assassination of Rabin, "settlers" in the WB, Bibi's political supporters, etc.) but none of these were an existential threat to the state itself.
Compare with the unfortunate fate of the Palestinians. They have never been able to curb their extremists. In fact, by and large, their extremists have proved the most popular; Hamas won the only actual election ever held; and they remain popular to this day.
Why is this bad for them? Well, extremists aren't noted for rational and workable solutions to their problems, or for having realistic and achievable goals. All things being equal, in an existential struggle, a group run by non-extremists has a better chance; it is better able to build up power, use it for its own ends realistically, and not give in to the temptation to make "grand gestures" that are perhaps satisfying to other extremists but do not actually work to achieve their goals.
This feeds into the second issue: the ability to reflect on what went wrong, when bad shit happens.
A whole mythology has grown up, among Israeli supporters and haters alike, about how all-powerful and competent Israel is. Hence a lot of surprise at how they screwed up so badly in allowing Hamas to commit the current attack. Yet Israeli history is rife with Israel screwing up badly. They have done so a lot in the past - indeed the current attack was on the anniversary of the Yom Kippur War, in which they were also totally taken by surprise.
The issue is this: when Israel has screwed up badly, the do in fact reflect on what went wrong. It is widely expected that Bibi's political days are numbered for this reason ... just like Golda Myer, who was turfed from office after the Yom Kippur war.
In short, when things go visibly badly for Israelis, there is a tendency on their part to ask "how did we screw up?"
Contrast with the Palestinian situation. When things go badly for the Palestinians, the tendency is to ask "how did the Israelis screw us this time?". The disasters they suffer are rarely traced to their own choices. Even if they are clearly caused by choices they have made, those choices are always contextualized - of course they made bad choices, this is because the Israelis have been screwing them for years, bad choices are to be expected if people have been screwed for years, etc.
Point is not whether any of that is true or not (though one may well ask why the Zionists did not take up the same habit before they seized their state - after all, they too had been screwed for years ... many of them were Holocaust survivors, and you don't get any more screwed than that).
Point is that of the two tendencies - blaming yourself for screw-ups versus blaming others - the "blaming yourself" tendency is much better correlated with success.
Personally, I think the two issues are related: extremists are in general less prone to self-reflection.
The Israelis certainly are not immune from having extremists with a tendency to blame everyone but themselves for problems - I mean, look at Bibi. The hope, though, is that the historical tendency to reject that line will hold consistently.
Another question is whether the Palestinian cause can be salvaged from its tendency to rely on extremism.
In that respect, the signs are not encouraging. The Western supporters of Palestine are not helping in this respect - if anything, they tend to re-enforce and reflect the Palestinian tendency to blame screw-ups on others, specifically on their Israeli adversaries.
I think this is at the base of the talk about "agency".
Again, it must be emphasized the issue isn't whether the "agency" point is in some sense true or not; that's a question to which there is probably no definitive answer, like whether people have free will vs. being destined by circumstances to some outcome or other.
The issue is that people who believe and act like their every choice is dictated by circumstances, circumstances created by their adversaries, are much less likely to succeed at their goals; and if their goals are set by extremists, they likely aren't reasonable or achievable.
Anyone who reads the 2002 bin laden letter and concludes he has a point is either a fundamentalist sociopath, stark raving mad, or illiterate but enamored of the calligraphy.
Quote from: Josquius on November 16, 2023, 10:22:37 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on November 16, 2023, 10:20:01 AMWhat about Gazaans, are they Hamas or Palestinians in this scenario?
Yes, they lost all the wars and Palestine was abandoned by all it's allies.
Mostly not part of Hamas considering literally half of them are kids.
What makes you think Hamas doesn't "employ" kids?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 16, 2023, 04:47:13 PMAnyone who reads the 2002 bin laden letter and concludes he has a point is either a fundamentalist sociopath, stark raving mad, or illiterate but enamored of the calligraphy.
I saw that was had made a comeback on TikTok from CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/16/tech/tiktok-osama-bin-laden-letter-to-america/index.html). I thought this was the best take (even if it does use the term "Incentivize" :bleeding:):
QuoteImran Ahmed, the CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, explained that TikTok incentivizes high engagement at all costs. The platform "is utterly ruthless about whether it uses hate, disinformation, or positive content to keep you addicted." As such, "the smart takes aren't the ones that succeed. It is the dumb takes that get the most virality on a platform like TikTok."
Ahmed, who has been studying the rise of conspiracy theories among young people, told CNN that TikTok "claims to be an entertainment machine" but is really "an indoctrination machine." Right now, "we have no visibility nor any control over the algorithms that are shaping the minds of young people in America today," he explained.
Meanwhile in Washington DC:
Ceasefire protest at Democrats' national headquarters turns violent (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67440337)
So, you're militant pacifists? :unsure:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 16, 2023, 04:47:13 PMAnyone who reads the 2002 bin laden letter and concludes he has a point is either a fundamentalist sociopath, stark raving mad, or illiterate but enamored of the calligraphy.
I wasn't familiar with it before - so here it is for anyone else:
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ubl2016/english/To%20the%20American%20people.pdf
I mean I can see why certain people would find it appealing. It has a simple message that has convinced many over the years - the Jews control the world financial system and are making everyone else poorer in favour of rich corporations (which are controlled by the Jews). I mean it's not even coded or hidden - it's right there in the text.
It's also worth noting he doesn't talk about Palestine and the Palestinians until right at the very end. And of course when he does talk about it there is only one possible solution - that this is Islamic land and must be returned to Islam (leaving unsaid that the same reasoning applies to Spain and the Balkans).
I think I can also say that anyone who finds this convincing is an unapologetic anti-semite.
Edit: apologies, this is a different letter. This is his "Letter to the Amereican people" which was obviously written during the Obama Presidency.
The 2002 "Letter to America" is a different letter, but it has mostly been scrubbed from most locations. I'll keep looking.
Yes. I've got a few questions for the Guardian based on this:
QuoteGuardian removes viral Bin Laden 9/11 letter over antisemitism
Alex Farber, Media Correspondent
Thursday November 16 2023, 5.41pm, The Times
The Guardian has removed a letter written by Osama bin Laden from its website after it was seized on to make antisemitic comments on social media about the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Written 21 years ago and dubbed a "letter to America", the eight-page open letter was published in full in 2002, a year after the 9/11 attacks. It was taken down on Wednesday night.
The hashtag #lettertoamerica has been viewed almost 10 million times on TikTok, helping to propel the article to become one of the most-viewed stories on the Guardian's website.
Bin Laden, who masterminded the terrorist attacks that killed almost 3,000 people, used antisemitic language in the letter and blamed the 9/11 attack on Jews. "Your former president warned you previously about the devastating Jewish control of capital and about a day that would come when it would enslave you," he wrote.
"The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its price, and pay for it heavily."
The antisemitic comments have been picked up and recirculated to support conspiracy theories involving Jews.
The Guardian's decision to remove the letter angered some users on social media, who held up the decision as further evidence of state oppression.
A Guardian spokesman said: "The transcript published on our website in 2002 has been widely shared on social media without the full context. Therefore we have decided to take it down and direct readers to the news article that originally contextualised it instead."
Love to know the full context in *checks notes* 2002 that made comments about "Jewish control of capital" enslaving people okay :hmm: (Possible context is that at that point Corbyn's comms chief was opinion editor at the Guardian....maybe....)
Quote from: Josquius on November 16, 2023, 08:30:12 AMNot claiming it as a quote.
But its very much the vibe of a lot of posts on here. Big reluctance to admit that this is a cunts on both sides situation.
Elsewhere on the web of course its much stronger.
I've made it explicit in my posts that I condemn Israel's continued occupation and its theft of Palestinian land. That's the "vibe" I'm getting from virtually everyone you're debating with, with the exception of Edgelord Otto.
I also believe Israel has a right to respond to violence against its citizens. I can hold both of these thoughts in my head simultaneously. This is the gray. This is the gray that I don't see the advocates for Palestine acknowledging.
"An eye for an eye leaves the world blind" is silly. Anyone who doesn't take an eye to begin with will have two eyes. Anyone who takes an eye to begin with and then says shit I won't do that anymore after having his own eye taken will have one eye.
Given the layout of the land, I understand that the IDF will inevitably kill civlians while it goes about killing Hamas. This is another part of the gray. The information I have been receiving makes me believe they are attempting to minimize these civilian casualties. Yet Palestinian advocates are presumably processing the exact same information and have come to the conclusion that Israel is conducting a genocide. What should I conclude from that? Maybe the word genocide has a different meaning in progleft circles. Maybe progleft rage means you don't have to tell the truth.
There is exactly one person I can think of that seems to be processing the same information as me, using words the way I use them, who has an attachment to the truth over fiction and after all that has come out in favor of a cease fire. Macron. Good for him.
I am shocked, SHOCKED to see 10 million of the "pro-Palestinian" crowd turn to an antisemitic triade by Osama fucking Bin Laden to support their "humanitarian" concerns.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2023, 05:33:59 PMLove to know the full context in *checks notes* 2002 that made comments about "Jewish control of capital" enslaving people okay :hmm: (Possible context is that at that point Corbyn's comms chief was opinion editor at the Guardian....maybe....)
To be slightly fair this article seems to be quoting the "Letter to the American People" from 2016 or thereabouts.
So maybe it's possible the 2002 letter is not so overtly anti-semitic.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2023, 05:33:59 PMLove to know the full context in *checks notes* 2002 that made comments about "Jewish control of capital" enslaving people okay :hmm: (Possible context is that at that point Corbyn's comms chief was opinion editor at the Guardian....maybe....)
I would love to know that too. So I arse myself to search the Guardian's site and get that same message, but no direction to the contextualized article. :hmm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GqL97vksSM
Long CBS interview with Netanyahu.
Overall I liked his responses. He did weasel duck the two state question.
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2023, 11:43:32 AMQuote from: viper37 on November 10, 2023, 04:15:37 PMOvB is gonna be pissed off at Netanyahu for committing blood libel at Israel.
Grumbler is going to be angry too.
Yi and Tamas are gonna be so mad.
I'm wondering if you have the self-awareness to understand how badly your stupid takes, telling other people what they will think, is undermining any credibility you have left on this topic.
My position has remained unchanged for 20+ years.
Whatever credibility you assume I have or not is irrelevant.
I believe both groups should have their own state, and I believe the Israeli state has been acting in bad faith because it's been winning and it's goal is to annex the territories and deport the population.
You guy don't want to admit it so long as there is one stateless Palestinian left living there, so what can I say? Nothing is going to convince you. Gaza is being closed to Palestinians as we speak. The West Bank is getting settled by murderous bastards with the support of the IDF and people like OvB and Raz find this totally justifiable while calling me racist. What kind of credible argument can I have with people like that?
What kind of argument can you have with a Putin supporter that truly believes there is a denazification process going on in Ukraine? There's no credible argument to bring, there's no logic to bring there. There's only trolling.
The reality is that Israel will empty Gaza of the Palestinians and then it will return to the WB to complete its work in the total apathy of the rest of the world as it did before.
Quote from: viper37 on November 17, 2023, 01:26:44 PMI believe both groups should have their own state, and I believe the Israeli state has been acting in bad faith because it's been winning and it's goal is to annex the territories and deport the population.
And I think the Palestinians have been acting in bad faith for 75 years--in continually losing wars and expecting to never have to concede territorial losses.
I am unfamiliar with any other scenario in which two sides have fought for specific territory for 75 years, one side that loses every battle, refuses to ever agree to real concessions--and the side that wins every battle agrees to territorial concessions but is held out as the warmonger.
I think both sides are acting in bad faith, or more specifically I think both sides have a critical enough mass of bad actors that neither can or should be trusted. Which is why the US should not support Israel without some pretty big strings attached. And frankly I don't really see that our support is really needed by them or particularly useful for us anything. Everybody hates the Palestinians, nobody is ever going to do shit for them besides wave flags and chant. The Israelis don't need our help.
Either a one state or two state solution would be great, so long as human rights are equal among all the inhabitants. But under the current circumstances both are impossible. Until that changes I don't really see what there is for the US to do. We cannot be on anybody's side until somebody is on our side. Just like in Syria.
I don't think it's true that no one does anything for the Palestinians. Plenty of folks are spending money to fuel the Palestinian fight against Israel. It's, of course, in pursuit of their own geopolitical objectives - but they're spending money. I think, too, that there's some spending to prop up Palestinian civilian administration.
Even the flag waving, street protest type folks have on occassion rendered more direct aid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blekingegade_Gang
Quote from: viper37 on November 17, 2023, 01:26:44 PMI believe both groups should have their own state, and I believe the Israeli state has been acting in bad faith because it's been winning and it's goal is to annex the territories and deport the population.
I mean what can I say? Israel has repeatedly agreed to a two-state solution. Whether that was in 1947, 1979, 1993 or whenever. It's always been the Palestinians who have refused to complete a deal.
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2023, 02:02:27 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 17, 2023, 01:26:44 PMI believe both groups should have their own state, and I believe the Israeli state has been acting in bad faith because it's been winning and it's goal is to annex the territories and deport the population.
I mean what can I say? Israel has repeatedly agreed to a two-state solution. Whether that was in 1947, 1979, 1993 or whenever. It's always been the Palestinians who have refused to complete a deal.
Yeah, and FWIW--despite some people's characterization of me, I'm not an Israel shill or entirely against the Palestinians. They have valid beefs, and Israel as the occupying power has "more power" in the situation so probably has to be expected to be more "high minded" than the weaker / vanquished power, to some degree. And the Likud coalition largely is an annexationist one that never intended to pursue the 2SS solution--but on the flipside, part of what empowered Likud was Arafat's shitting on the Oslo process at the 2000 Camp David meetings and the subsequent Intifada. I'm not saying Israel's drift towards more aggressive policies since then was the "right move", but it didn't come from nowhere.
In business they often use the term "A Side / B Side" when talking about deals. Essentially the "A" side of the deal is the side with the most power, the B side is the side with lesser power. Think Wal-Mart negotiating a contract with a midsized company to supply certain goods; the deal is incremental for Wal-Mart, but life changing for the supplier.
Wal-Mart has more cards to play, and the B side is going to have to accept the A side may get to tilt things in its advantage.
To some degree a peace treaty after a war is similar--the side that actually won the war is the A Side, and the B Side's options are going to be making some concessions or trying to continue the war. A key understanding of the conflict is the B side in this conflict has never truly agreed that it has to make concessions, and has opted to continue the war (albeit often times at a low level of simmer.)
I will note few, in fact none I can easily think of, wars in modern times have seen a B side refuse to admit when it has lost and things turn out well for the B side.
In Swedish, "Gaza" is pronounced the same as "gasa" which means "(to) gas" or "gas!". Demonstrators in a southern Swedish city have been chanting "Gaza Gaza Gaza judarna" (gas gas gas the Jews), causing significant distress to local Jews (and any sane person). Many people refuse to let Oct 7 challenge their support for Gaza, hell what's happening in Sweden makes me question my support for Sweden.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 17, 2023, 02:14:09 PMI will note few, in fact none I can easily think of, wars in modern times have seen a B side refuse to admit when it has lost and things turn out well for the B side.
The Taliban.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 17, 2023, 02:14:09 PMQuote from: Barrister on November 17, 2023, 02:02:27 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 17, 2023, 01:26:44 PMI believe both groups should have their own state, and I believe the Israeli state has been acting in bad faith because it's been winning and it's goal is to annex the territories and deport the population.
I mean what can I say? Israel has repeatedly agreed to a two-state solution. Whether that was in 1947, 1979, 1993 or whenever. It's always been the Palestinians who have refused to complete a deal.
Yeah, and FWIW--despite some people's characterization of me, I'm not an Israel shill or entirely against the Palestinians. They have valid beefs, and Israel as the occupying power has "more power" in the situation so probably has to be expected to be more "high minded" than the weaker / vanquished power, to some degree. And the Likud coalition largely is an annexationist one that never intended to pursue the 2SS solution--but on the flipside, part of what empowered Likud was Arafat's shitting on the Oslo process at the 2000 Camp David meetings and the subsequent Intifada. I'm not saying Israel's drift towards more aggressive policies since then was the "right move", but it didn't come from nowhere.
In business they often use the term "A Side / B Side" when talking about deals. Essentially the "A" side of the deal is the side with the most power, the B side is the side with lesser power. Think Wal-Mart negotiating a contract with a midsized company to supply certain goods; the deal is incremental for Wal-Mart, but life changing for the supplier.
Wal-Mart has more cards to play, and the B side is going to have to accept the A side may get to tilt things in its advantage.
To some degree a peace treaty after a war is similar--the side that actually won the war is the A Side, and the B Side's options are going to be making some concessions or trying to continue the war. A key understanding of the conflict is the B side in this conflict has never truly agreed that it has to make concessions, and has opted to continue the war (albeit often times at a low level of simmer.)
I will note few, in fact none I can easily think of, wars in modern times have seen a B side refuse to admit when it has lost and things turn out well for the B side.
Vietnam
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2023, 05:06:17 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 17, 2023, 02:14:09 PMI will note few, in fact none I can easily think of, wars in modern times have seen a B side refuse to admit when it has lost and things turn out well for the B side.
The Taliban.
The Taliban never actually lost though.
Quote from: Gups on November 17, 2023, 05:15:55 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 17, 2023, 02:14:09 PMQuote from: Barrister on November 17, 2023, 02:02:27 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 17, 2023, 01:26:44 PMI believe both groups should have their own state, and I believe the Israeli state has been acting in bad faith because it's been winning and it's goal is to annex the territories and deport the population.
I mean what can I say? Israel has repeatedly agreed to a two-state solution. Whether that was in 1947, 1979, 1993 or whenever. It's always been the Palestinians who have refused to complete a deal.
Yeah, and FWIW--despite some people's characterization of me, I'm not an Israel shill or entirely against the Palestinians. They have valid beefs, and Israel as the occupying power has "more power" in the situation so probably has to be expected to be more "high minded" than the weaker / vanquished power, to some degree. And the Likud coalition largely is an annexationist one that never intended to pursue the 2SS solution--but on the flipside, part of what empowered Likud was Arafat's shitting on the Oslo process at the 2000 Camp David meetings and the subsequent Intifada. I'm not saying Israel's drift towards more aggressive policies since then was the "right move", but it didn't come from nowhere.
In business they often use the term "A Side / B Side" when talking about deals. Essentially the "A" side of the deal is the side with the most power, the B side is the side with lesser power. Think Wal-Mart negotiating a contract with a midsized company to supply certain goods; the deal is incremental for Wal-Mart, but life changing for the supplier.
Wal-Mart has more cards to play, and the B side is going to have to accept the A side may get to tilt things in its advantage.
To some degree a peace treaty after a war is similar--the side that actually won the war is the A Side, and the B Side's options are going to be making some concessions or trying to continue the war. A key understanding of the conflict is the B side in this conflict has never truly agreed that it has to make concessions, and has opted to continue the war (albeit often times at a low level of simmer.)
I will note few, in fact none I can easily think of, wars in modern times have seen a B side refuse to admit when it has lost and things turn out well for the B side.
Vietnam
When did Vietnam lose?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 17, 2023, 05:26:41 PMQuote from: Barrister on November 17, 2023, 05:06:17 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 17, 2023, 02:14:09 PMI will note few, in fact none I can easily think of, wars in modern times have seen a B side refuse to admit when it has lost and things turn out well for the B side.
The Taliban.
The Taliban never actually lost though.
That's remarkably circular reasoning - because the Taliban eventually won that means they never lost.
I would have said that by 2002 everyone agreed the Taliban had lost decisively - they previously ruled Afghanistan, now they didn't. They certainly had lost to the same extent that the Palestinians had lost in 1948 or 1967 (or either Intafada).
Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2023, 04:52:03 PMI don't think anyone here is actually supporting the settler position.
You may have missed the posts by Hamilcar, where he said that Palestinians should be eradicated and their culture destroyed.
You may have also missed Otto's post where he once again said that all Muslims are evil.
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2023, 02:02:27 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 17, 2023, 01:26:44 PMI believe both groups should have their own state, and I believe the Israeli state has been acting in bad faith because it's been winning and it's goal is to annex the territories and deport the population.
I mean what can I say? Israel has repeatedly agreed to a two-state solution. Whether that was in 1947, 1979, 1993 or whenever. It's always been the Palestinians who have refused to complete a deal.
Come on.
Look at the maps of what was offered, and look at the finer points. No one would have realistically agreed to that.
Israel declared its independence in 1948 because they thought they would gain more territory than by simply accepting the UN peace plan with the proposed borders. First thing they do is to expel the Arabs from their territory wherever they can. Not saying the Arab invaders were angels, but it's not a GI Joe vs Cobra situation here.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 17, 2023, 01:29:53 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 17, 2023, 01:26:44 PMI believe both groups should have their own state, and I believe the Israeli state has been acting in bad faith because it's been winning and it's goal is to annex the territories and deport the population.
And I think the Palestinians have been acting in bad faith for 75 years--in continually losing wars and expecting to never have to concede territorial losses.
I am unfamiliar with any other scenario in which two sides have fought for specific territory for 75 years, one side that loses every battle, refuses to ever agree to real concessions--and the side that wins every battle agrees to territorial concessions but is held out as the warmonger.
Burn Gaza now, nothing less. (https://themessenger.com/news/burn-gaza-now-says-nissim-vaturi-deputy-head-israel-legislature-knesset)
What territorial concession has Israel ever agreed to? They propose territorial concession but keep pushing for new settlements and they split a proposed Palestinian state into three parts. No sane leader would agree to that and the other conditions Israel asked of the Palestinians. That amounted to not having a state at all, only an Israeli colony subject to further settlement, basically statu quo with limited guarantees.
The only real acceptable deal came in 2008 under Olmert (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ehud-olmert-s-peace-offer). Abbas rejected it because he did not have time to study it or to present it to anyone else. He later regretted it.
But it is doubtful Israel would have gone ahead with the plan, given the political climate. Olmert was on his way out due to bribery scandal.
A little more time for negotiations, and it might have worked.
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2023, 05:50:09 PMThat's remarkably circular reasoning - because the Taliban eventually won that means they never lost.
I would have said that by 2002 everyone agreed the Taliban had lost decisively - they previously ruled Afghanistan, now they didn't. They certainly had lost to the same extent that the Palestinians had lost in 1948 or 1967 (or either Intafada).
To me it isn't though--like the Taliban was in a state of Civil War when the U.S. invaded, and after the U.S. invaded it lost a lot of territory, but importantly--it never lost all of its territory, and never did it lose all of its military either. Diminished / struggling? Yep. Lost? No.
The Continental Army was diminished and struggling after the British drove Washington's ass out of New York, but he wasn't beat.
A dig difference IMO is Palestine literally didn't even have a military force after the 1949 Armistice Agreement, it was overseen by Egypt and Jordan (technically the West Bank was actually part of Jordan.) After Israel occupied the land in 1967, Palestine ceased having any actual military force at all. Remember Palestinian militancy in the 70s / 80s looked nothing like a war, it was killing Olympic athletes and bombings and shit targeting prominent people--because the Palestinian resistance was doing shit like that, but they didn't field an actual army.
You are fully occupied and have no military left, seems like "lost" to me. Your daddy countries Egypt / Jordan signing a cease fire that left you under Israeli control sounds like "lost" to me.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2023, 06:17:15 PMYou may have also missed Otto's post where he once again said that all Muslims are evil.
Let's calm it down.
Quote from: viper37 on November 17, 2023, 06:19:33 PMIsrael declared its independence in 1948 because they thought they would gain more territory than by simply accepting the UN peace plan with the proposed borders. First thing they do is to expel the Arabs from their territory wherever they can. Not saying the Arab invaders were angels, but it's not a GI Joe vs Cobra situation here.
And the Arabs rejected the UN Partition Line and invaded because they assumed they could get more territory, they were wrong (in their case, that meant the entirety of Israel.)
1947 was a bad plan, and the UN should be sternly reprimanded for it.
However, given the state of Palestine, its extreme weakness, its lack of prospect of ever having an actual Arab state fight a war for it again, by the 1990s when Oslo was negotiated, that was actually a good deal for Palestine relative to its "power" in the situation. Statehood, territorial exchanges etc.
And on the last point there is lots of hypocritical arguing that the Israelis expelled 750.000 Palestinians whilst conveniently forgetting the 900.000 jews expelled from Arab/Muslim states.
Very little noise from pro-palestinians that the Arab/Muslim states give land back to the Jews the same as the Palestinians. Hypocrisy at its finest.
A simple tit for tat with the Palestinians being given what was stolen from Jews in '47 would have solved most problems.
Quote from: Threviel on November 18, 2023, 03:36:17 AMAnd on the last point there is lots of hypocritical arguing that the Israelis expelled 750.000 Palestinians whilst conveniently forgetting the 900.000 jews expelled from Arab/Muslim states.
Very little noise from pro-palestinians that the Arab/Muslim states give land back to the Jews the same as the Palestinians. Hypocrisy at its finest.
A simple tit for tat with the Palestinians being given what was stolen from Jews in '47 would have solved most problems.
That point was raised before. They were expelled after Israel had expelled the Arab population of Palestine.
Nonetheless, it's again in a situation where one evil justifies another evil.
Does WWII justified the crimes of Stalin?
Should the crimes of Russia in Ukraine justify the extermination of the Russian people?
Which again—the Jews throughout the Middle East had nothing to do with Arab expulsions in a place they didn't live. I like that you show your cards there with that "all Jews everywhere share guilt" logic. (Ignoring your largely deficient understanding of the Arab expulsions to begin with.)
Quote from: Threviel on November 18, 2023, 03:36:17 AMthe Israelis expelled 750.000 Palestinians
I dispute the word expelled.
My understanding is there were a number of factors at work that made Arabs leave their homes. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem told them to do so over the radio, and to return home once the Jews had been defeated. Another was the murder of Palestinian civilians by the Stern gang at Deir Yassin.
Yeah, I mean the Nakba being uncritically reported as a mass Jewish expulsion of Arabs is part of the "3 part lie" that has been orchestrated since 1948 to delegitimize the Israeli state. For various reasons, the political left has always enabled and promoted these lies.
The three steps are:
1. Portray the founding of Israel to be simple and one sided--Jews who had no right to be there came in and forced Arabs, who had every right to be there, for their home. Making way for additional Jewish immigrants. This means Israel is now a state "founded with original sin", and can be rhetorically attacked as much--similar to how America is frequently held to be in a state of "original sin" for its treatment of Native Americans and slavery.
2. Portray subsequent Israeli military occupations as colonialism, directly linking them to the anti-colonial movement of the mid-20th century and specifically painting Israeli occupation of territory after 1967 as no different from e.g. British, French or other "evil" colonialism of the past.
3. The final lie is labeling Israel an apartheid state, and proclaiming that the West only allows this due to "guilt over the Holocaust." This will involve elaborate narratives trying to stretch the history of South African apartheid to be identical to the situation in Israel/Palestine.
Of course--the real narrative, it should be no surprise, is far more complex and far less anti-Israel.
The real narrative is there were evil Jews active in the 1940s, including the Irgun and other extremists. The truth is Israeli/Jewish military forces did destroy Arab villages and physical homes and force some displacements.
However, the real narrative is also that by all evidence the vast majority of Arabs who fled were fleeing war, not fleeing at the point of an Israeli gun. They left of their own volition. There is also documented evidence Arab leaders in the region even sent out communications encouraging this flight--with the promise that "when we shortly destroy Israel, we'll have either your original homes, or even better land we take from the dead Jews to give you."
The real narrative has to address the fact that Jews were an ancient people in the Middle East with longstanding rights of abode in the Ottoman Empire, and rights of property ownership--which they exercised by legally buying land in modern day Israel. The real narrative has to address that while there were bad guys on the Jewish side, the Jewish state actually reigned in their worst bad guys very early on. It also has to acknowledge, as I mentioned, that a good % of the Arabs who left of their own free will, did so expecting incoming Arab armies to kill all the Jews so they could later steal their land.
The real narrative also has to address the reality, the Jewish state responded to the Jewish refugee crisis by giving Jews homes. The Arab states responded to the Arab refugee crisis--which some of these very Arab leaders helped cause by telling Arabs to leave Palestine, by making those Arab refugees permanently stateless "unpersons", with no reasonable prospects for the future. (Egypt was always careful for example to issue Gazans, when it ruled Gaza, identity documents that made clear these are not Egyptians, they are non-citizen Gazans.)
The real narrative on the 1967 war is there were ratcheting tensions and very strong Egyptian-lead Pan-Arabism that was focused on a coalition war to destroy Israel. That for the 2nd time in 20 years, against fairly crazy odds, Israel won against a huge Arab coalition--and it seized land from the two most guilty architects of that coalition--Egypt and Jordan.
The real narrative has to acknowledge that other than Egypt signing a peace treaty some time later, the rest of the Arab world largely encouraged Palestinians to continue a low grade conflict against Israel--and continued to largely deny them meaningful opportunity to move as refugees to other Arab countries (excepting the relatively large population in Jordan, although it should be noted Jordan mostly had to take those Arabs in because it was a fait accompli, empowered with any level of choice Jordan has always refused Palestinian refugees.)
The real narrative has to acknowledge the meaningful compromises Israel put on the table in the early 1990s with the Oslo Accords, and the fact virtually all non-Israeli parties to those negotiations and the following peace process blame its failure on Yasser Arafat.
Frankly, if one wants to look at the real narrative, instead of the invented leftist one that viper surely has been inhaling for years, the Palestinians are frankly idiots who fucked around real hard, repeatedly, and found out, repeatedly. They are also primarily victimized by other Arab states moreso than Israel.
All that being said--most reasonable people, myself included, still think the reality is that in the here and now we have 5m Palestinians living where they are, and there does need to be some settlement. Endless occupation isn't the path forward, and Israel will have to make concessions to resolve it. But if people want to keep fighting over the history, it takes a pretty major manipulation of the history to paint Palestinians as innocent victims.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 17, 2023, 06:35:00 PMA dig difference IMO is Palestine literally didn't even have a military force after the 1949 Armistice Agreement, it was overseen by Egypt and Jordan (technically the West Bank was actually part of Jordan.) After Israel occupied the land in 1967, Palestine ceased having any actual military force at all.
I used to own an excellent SPI game on the Israeli wars. You could play 56, 67 and 73. In the 67 scenario there were a few shitty 2-1 units representing Palestine in Gaza.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 18, 2023, 06:29:04 PM3. The final lie is labeling Israel an apartheid state, and proclaiming that the West only allows this due to "guilt over the Holocaust." This will involve elaborate narratives trying to stretch the history of South African apartheid to be identical to the situation in Israel/Palestine.
This one IMO is less of a lie and more of a characterization. It's a characterization of military occupation with no self determination.
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2023, 03:17:42 PMThat point was raised before. They were expelled after Israel had expelled the Arab population of Palestine.
So?
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2023, 03:17:42 PMNonetheless, it's again in a situation where one evil justifies another evil.
Like the Hamas attack where a gigantic evil was justified by small evil?
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2023, 03:17:42 PMDoes WWII justified the crimes of Stalin?
I would argue that any action that stopped Germany led to a better resolution for the Soviet people, so yes, if his crimes were done in order to stop Germany and they aided in that they were justified. This does not mean that his every crime was justified.
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2023, 03:17:42 PMShould the crimes of Russia in Ukraine justify the extermination of the Russian people?
The crimes of Russia giver Ukraine every right to defend itself, exactly like the crimes of Gaza gives Israel every right to defend itself. Your deliriums about some kind of extermination, which I can only assume is some comment regarding imagined Israeli exterminations, is neither here nor there.
Quote from: Threviel on November 19, 2023, 01:44:03 AMLike the Hamas attack where a gigantic evil was justified by small evil?
I don't recall ever saying anything remotely like that.
QuoteHowever, the real narrative is also that by all evidence the vast majority of Arabs who fled were fleeing war, not fleeing at the point of an Israeli gun. They left of their own volition. There is also documented evidence Arab leaders in the region even sent out communications encouraging this flight--with the promise that "when we shortly destroy Israel, we'll have either your original homes, or even better land we take from the dead Jews to give you."
Always an iffy part of ethnic cleansing this. You see it thrown up around many examples.
"Oh we only killed a few hundred. The rest simply chose entirely of their free will to run away from our rampaging armies".
See for instance Azerbaijan's recent conquest.
QuoteThe real narrative has to address the fact that Jews were an ancient people in the Middle East with longstanding rights of abode in the Ottoman Empire, and rights of property ownership--which they exercised by legally buying land in modern day Israel.
Jews have a long history living in the middle east. They've basically always been there.
But many of the incomers with Israel absolutely don't have historic links with the region beyond the vaguest distant ancestor 2 millennia ago level.
Also true that many of these foreign Jews bought some land legally- but then this is the case with a lot of colonialism. The Europeans don't just march into Africa, plant their flag, and shout "Mine!". They come to some agreement with some local group or other.
Its a nuanced issue, but the nuance blows both ways.
QuoteThe real narrative has to address that while there were bad guys on the Jewish side, the Jewish state actually reigned in their worst bad guys very early on. It also has to acknowledge, as I mentioned, that a good % of the Arabs who left of their own free will, did so expecting incoming Arab armies to kill all the Jews so they could later steal their land.
[/quote]
I'm really not sure on this one. If we take it as read that the Arab refugees all believe in this....
"Yeah the Nazis killed a tonne of Poles but do you know how horrible those Poles were and what they would have done if they'd been the ones invading Germany?"
QuoteThe real narrative also has to address the reality, the Jewish state responded to the Jewish refugee crisis by giving Jews homes. The Arab states responded to the Arab refugee crisis--which some of these very Arab leaders helped cause by telling Arabs to leave Palestine, by making those Arab refugees permanently stateless "unpersons", with no reasonable prospects for the future. (Egypt was always careful for example to issue Gazans, when it ruled Gaza, identity documents that made clear these are not Egyptians, they are non-citizen Gazans.)
Surely the shitty treatment Palestinians got from Arab states increases sympathy for them?
Quote from: Josquius on November 20, 2023, 05:38:32 AMAlways an iffy part of ethnic cleansing this. You see it thrown up around many examples.
"Oh we only killed a few hundred. The rest simply chose entirely of their free will to run away from our rampaging armies".
See for instance Azerbaijan's recent conquest.
Sure, but at the same time you can't just simply ascribe every person who ever flees war as a "victim of ethnic cleansing." We also know, as a matter of record, leadership of the Arab invasion force even told their own people to leave. It isn't nearly as clear cut as say, the Turkish expulsion of Armenians--and even the example you cite in Azerbaijan is pretty complex. Internationally Nagorno-Karabakh has been recognized as Azerbaijani territory ever since the USSR collapsed. The whole premise of that trouble appeared to be "well, the Armenians there want to live in an ethnostate and shouldn't have to be part of Azerbaijan", which was backed by Armenian force of arms back when Russia was more interventionist in the region.
And I don't see any evidence that Azerbaijan's plans were "kill every Armenian", in fact they seemed to be saying they could continue to live there as long as they accepted the government in Baku had sovereignty of the region--which not for nothing, is pretty standard expectation for territory inside your
de jure borders.
The fact most of the Armenians have chosen to leave instead of accept being Azerbaijani citizens doesn't, IMO, constitute ethnic cleansing.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 18, 2023, 06:29:04 PMHowever, the real narrative is also that by all evidence the vast majority of Arabs who fled were fleeing war, not fleeing at the point of an Israeli gun. They left of their own volition. There is also documented evidence Arab leaders in the region even sent out communications encouraging this flight--with the promise that "when we shortly destroy Israel, we'll have either your original homes, or even better land we take from the dead Jews to give you."
False narrative sent by Israel.
Show me that documentation encouraging this flight.
The plan to expel the Palestinians was deliberate:
During the "long seminar", a meeting of Ben-Gurion with his chief advisors in January 1948, the main point was that it was desirable to "transfer" as many Arabs as possible out of Jewish territory, and the discussion focussed mainly on the implementation.[13]: 63 The experience gained in a number of attacks in February 1948, notably those on Qisarya and Sa'sa', was used in the development of a plan detailing how enemy population centers should be handled.[13]: 82 According to Pappé, plan Dalet was the master plan for the expulsion of the Palestinians.[13]: 82 However, according to Gelber, Plan Dalet instructions were: In case of resistance, the population of conquered villages was to be expelled outside the borders of the Jewish state. If no resistance was met, the residents could stay put, under military rule.[45]About the "voluntary part"Overall, Morris concludes that during this period the "Arab evacuees from the towns and villages left largely because of Jewish—Haganah, IZL or LHI—attacks or fear of impending attack" but that only "an extremely small, almost insignificant number of the refugees during this early period left because of Haganah or IZL or LHI expulsion orders or forceful 'advice' to that effect."[19]: 138, 139 And there is this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacreThe village put up stiffer resistance than the Jewish militias had expected and they suffered casualties, but it fell after house-to-house fighting. Some of the Palestinian Arab villagers were killed in the course of the battle, while others were massacred by the Jewish militias while trying to flee or surrender. A number of Palestinian Arab prisoners were executed, some after being paraded in West Jerusalem, where they were jeered, spat at, stoned, looted, and eventually murdered.[1][5][6] In addition to the killing and widespread looting, there may have been cases of mutilation and rape. Oh, dear, does not that seem familiar? How can it be? Both groups committing atrocities without punition and being revered for it? What do you know. No one is a saint. Shocker.And here I thought the story was of valliant Jewish combattants fighting hordes of Arab Orcs determined to exterminate them. What if history was just a tad more complicated than that? Could it be? Could it be more complicated than your average Hollywood fantasy movie? I guess not.One more bit:News of the killings sparked terror among Palestinians across the country, frightening them to flee their homes in the face of Jewish troop advances and it strengthened the resolve of Arab governments to intervene, which they did five weeks later.[4] Four days after the Deir Yassin massacre, on April 13, a reprisal attack on the Hadassah medical convoy in Jerusalem ended in a massacre killing 78 Jews, most of whom were the medical staff.[10][11] Archival material in Israeli military deposits documenting the massacre remain classified Has it happens, this massacre prompted other Palestinians to flee to avoid the same fate. this is what you call "leaving under their own volition". And the massacre was exploited for political purpose on all sides.
And here we have what a typical surrender would look like:
Next, the Haganah defeated local militia in Tiberias. On 21–22 April in Haifa, after the Haganah waged a day-and-a-half battle including psychological warfare, the Jewish National Committee was unable to offer the Palestinian council assurance that an unconditional surrender would proceed without incident. Finally, Irgun under Menachim Begin fired mortars on the infrastructure in Jaffa. Combined with the fear inspired by Deir Yassin, each of these military actions resulted in panicked Palestinian evacuations.[47][48][49]
No surrender under Begin.
And about your Arab leaders communications to leave (which are bollocks):HaifaPalestinians fled the city of Haifa en masse, in one of the most notable flights of this stage. Historian Efraim Karsh writes that not only had half of the Arab community in Haifa community fled the city before the final battle was joined in late April 1948, but another 5,000–15,000 left apparently voluntarily during the fighting while the rest, some 15,000–25,000, were ordered to leave, as was initially claimed by an Israeli source, on the instructions of the Arab Higher Committee.[citation needed]Karsh concludes that there was no Jewish grand design to force this departure, and that in fact the Haifa Jewish leadership tried to convince some Arabs to stay, to no avail.[51][52] Walid Khalidi disputes this account, saying that two independent studies, which analysed CIA and BBC intercepts of radio broadcasts from the region, concluded that no orders or instructions were given by the Arab Higher Committee.[53]According to Morris, "The Haganah mortar attacks of 21–22 April [on Haifa] were primarily designed to break Arab morale in order to bring about a swift collapse of resistance and speedy surrender. [...] But clearly the offensive, and especially the mortaring, precipitated the exodus. The three-inch mortars "opened up on the market square [where there was] a great crowd [...] a great panic took hold. The multitude burst into the port, pushed aside the policemen, charged the boats and began to flee the town", as the official Haganah history later put it".[19]: 191, 200 According to Pappé,[13]: 96 this mortar barrage was deliberately aimed at civilians to precipitate their flight from Haifa.The Haganah broadcast a warning to Arabs in Haifa on 21 April: "that unless they sent away 'infiltrated dissidents' they would be advised to evacuate all women and children, because they would be strongly attacked from now on".[54] Just as in later wars, the goal was again here to create a state for Jews and Jews only, to expel as many Palestinians as possible from the territory. Only a tiny minority of Arabs could be tolerated as citizens of the new country.As for the Jewish crisis refugee, yes the Arab resisted the call to accept more Jewish refugees, and we can certainly debate the morality of that, but at the time, there was civil unrest in the British mandate due to Jewish emigration, the Arab Palestinian population felt ostracized and dispossessed, rendered landless by the Jewish population arrival in Palestine. Not the fault of the Jewish people themselves, but it's a consequence of the economic system in place and the purchase of lands by them. But it created an underclass of citizens, were Palestinian Arabs were certainly not treated equally. Ref (https://www.jstor.org/stable/4284093). Again, history is rarely black and white like a GI Joe cartoon. That's the reason why the UN proposed a partition plan, to separate both groups, so both would have their own state, their own lands, their own rules. But neither the Arab population nor the Jewish leadership wanted that. So now there's war and terror on both sides.The only solution for peace is to go back to the original idea.
The idea of transferring populations was also written about and proposed by British commissions as well--that isn't in and of itself evidence of why ~700,000 Arabs left their homes.
Benny Morris--a decently respected Israeli historian who (perhaps as proof of not being overly biased) has been both praised and criticized by both sides of the Israel / Palestine divide, talks about this extensively in his book (free PDF: https://yplus.ps/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Morris-Benny-The-Birth-of-the-Palestinian-Refugee-Problem-Revisited.pdf).
I suggest reading the entirety of his "Conclusion" starting on page 588; but a salient selection is below:
QuoteThe first Arab–Israeli war, of 1948, was launched by the Palestinian Arabs, who rejected the UN partition resolution and embarked on hostilities aimed at preventing the birth of Israel. That war and not design, Jewish or Arab, gave birth to the Palestinian refugee problem.
But the displacement of Arabs from Palestine or from the areas of Palestine that would become the Jewish State was inherent in Zionist ideology and, in microcosm, in Zionist praxis from the start of the enterprise. The piecemeal eviction of tenant farmers, albeit in relatively small numbers, during the first five decades of Zionist land purchase and settlement naturally stemmed from, and in a sense hinted at, the underlying thrust of the ideology, which was to turn an Arab-populated land into a State with an overwhelming Jewish majority. And the Zionist leaders' thinking about, and periodic endorsement of, 'transfer' during those decades – voluntary and agreed, if possible, but coerced if not – readied hearts and minds for the denouement of 1948 and its immediate aftermath, in which some 700,000 Arabs were displaced from their homes (though the majority remained in Palestine).
But there was no pre-war Zionist plan to expel 'the Arabs' from Palestine or the areas of the emergent Jewish State; and the Yishuv did not enter the war with a plan or policy of expulsion. Nor was the pre-war 'transfer' thinking ever translated, in the course of the war, into an agreed, systematic policy of expulsion. Hence, in the war's first four months, between the end of November 1947 and the end of March 1948, there were no preparations for mass expulsion and there were almost no cases of expulsion or the leveling of villages; hence, during the following ten months, Haganah and IDF units acted inconsistently, most units driving out Arab communities as a matter of course while others left (Muslim as well as Christian and Druse) villages and townspeople in place; and hence, at war's end, Israel emerged with a substantial Arab minority, of 150,000 (a minority that today numbers one million – and still constitutes (a restive and potentially explosive) one fifth of the State's population).
Quote from: Josquius on November 20, 2023, 05:38:32 AMAlso true that many of these foreign Jews bought some land legally- but then this is the case with a lot of colonialism. The Europeans don't just march into Africa, plant their flag, and shout "Mine!". They come to some agreement with some local group or other.
I do know that the Boers said mine! to the Zulus. I do know the white farmers of Kenya said mine! I don't *know* how the white farmers of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe and the white farmers of Algeria got their land, but I would be surprised if they bought it.
Seeing reports of fighting at al-Shifa hospital, as well as at the Indonesian Hospital in Northern Gaza.
I expect Israel supporters will take the fighting as evidence that Hamas is using the hospitals as defensive points - because why would Israel fight there if there was no one to fight?
Conversely, I expect Palestine supporters to take the fighting as evidence of Israeli perfidy, wantonly destroying necessary infrastructure as part of the punishment they're meting out on Palestinians.
All the reporting I have seen at al-Shifa is it was largely uncontested, IDF was able to do multiple search sweeps throughout the hospital looking for Hamas or Hamas supplies. They have supposedly found a tunnel or two, and some small arms caches, although the veracity of both that and the argument that it proves it was a Hamas command center remains disputed.
I haven't seen reports of extensive fighting there, if that is going on it is a very new development--because the IDF has had full control of the hospital for days and as I said, had conducted a few full-facility searches of the complex over the last few days.
If there has been fighting that has broken out there, it would have been some fighters arriving to contest the IDF presence, I would think--because if there had been large numbers of fighters still holed up inside the walls of the building they would have been engaging with IDF forces as they did their repeated searches of the building.
QuoteSure, but at the same time you can't just simply ascribe every person who ever flees war as a "victim of ethnic cleansing." We also know, as a matter of record, leadership of the Arab invasion force even told their own people to leave. It isn't nearly as clear cut as say, the Turkish expulsion of Armenians--and even the example you cite in Azerbaijan is pretty complex. Internationally Nagorno-Karabakh has been recognized as Azerbaijani territory ever since the USSR collapsed. The whole premise of that trouble appeared to be "well, the Armenians there want to live in an ethnostate and shouldn't have to be part of Azerbaijan", which was backed by Armenian force of arms back when Russia was more interventionist in the region.
And I don't see any evidence that Azerbaijan's plans were "kill every Armenian", in fact they seemed to be saying they could continue to live there as long as they accepted the government in Baku had sovereignty of the region--which not for nothing, is pretty standard expectation for territory inside your de jure borders.
The fact most of the Armenians have chosen to leave instead of accept being Azerbaijani citizens doesn't, IMO, constitute ethnic cleansing.
Whether its in a country's "legal territory" or not doesn't really matter for ethnic cleansing. Most ethnic cleansing does tend to be within legally held territory.
Given the stories coming out about Azerbaijani attorcities against some villages and the whole past 2-3 decades of active attempts to erase even Armenian history in the area I really don't think it was just the locals throwing a huff because their side lost.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 20, 2023, 11:44:10 AMQuote from: Josquius on November 20, 2023, 05:38:32 AMAlso true that many of these foreign Jews bought some land legally- but then this is the case with a lot of colonialism. The Europeans don't just march into Africa, plant their flag, and shout "Mine!". They come to some agreement with some local group or other.
I do know that the Boers said mine! to the Zulus. I do know the white farmers of Kenya said mine! I don't *know* how the white farmers of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe and the white farmers of Algeria got their land, but I would be surprised if they bought it.
You'd be surprised.
Even with non Europeans there tended to be an at least surface attempt to make it all look legal and above board
With Algeria in particular you had a place which absolutely did have a pretty comparable outlook on land to Europeans.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 20, 2023, 01:15:51 PMAll the reporting I have seen at al-Shifa is it was largely uncontested, IDF was able to do multiple search sweeps throughout the hospital looking for Hamas or Hamas supplies. They have supposedly found a tunnel or two, and some small arms caches, although the veracity of both that and the argument that it proves it was a Hamas command center remains disputed.
I haven't seen reports of extensive fighting there, if that is going on it is a very new development--because the IDF has had full control of the hospital for days and as I said, had conducted a few full-facility searches of the complex over the last few days.
If there has been fighting that has broken out there, it would have been some fighters arriving to contest the IDF presence, I would think--because if there had been large numbers of fighters still holed up inside the walls of the building they would have been engaging with IDF forces as they did their repeated searches of the building.
Fair points. I - or the article I read - may have conflated the reports of fighting at the Indonesian hospital with al-Shifa.
Quote from: Josquius on November 20, 2023, 01:59:04 PMYou'd be surprised.
Even with non Europeans there tended to be an at least surface attempt to make it all look legal and above board
With Algeria in particular you had a place which absolutely did have a pretty comparable outlook on land to Europeans.
I don't find any of this convincing.
I did a quick scan on Wiki about Rhodesia and Kenya. No mention of buying land.
Quote from: Josquius on November 20, 2023, 01:59:04 PMWhether its in a country's "legal territory" or not doesn't really matter for ethnic cleansing. Most ethnic cleansing does tend to be within legally held territory.
Given the stories coming out about Azerbaijani attorcities against some villages and the whole past 2-3 decades of active attempts to erase even Armenian history in the area I really don't think it was just the locals throwing a huff because their side lost.
Again, you cannot simply say that all ~150,000 Armenians who have made a deliberate choice to move--after being told by Azerbaijan they would have all the normal rights of Azerbaijani citizenship--but would not have special privileges or exemptions from the law or be allowed to run an illegal state-within-a-state, as ethnic cleansing. That is just a very simplistic view of it, and it majorly waters down any moral force in using the term "ethnic cleansing."
Azerbaijan has no moral imperative to allow part of its country political independence, anymore than the Spanish did or the Americans did in 1861.
The fact there has been both Azeri-->Armenian and Armenian-->Azeri political violence cannot be extrapolated to paint the entire conflict as ethnic cleansing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 20, 2023, 02:09:41 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 20, 2023, 01:59:04 PMYou'd be surprised.
Even with non Europeans there tended to be an at least surface attempt to make it all look legal and above board
With Algeria in particular you had a place which absolutely did have a pretty comparable outlook on land to Europeans.
I don't find any of this convincing.
I did a quick scan on Wiki about Rhodesia and Kenya. No mention of buying land.
Every colony is different. There's no one size fits all rule.
From what I gather Kenya is particularly well known for how egregious white land grabs are.
Still. There were attempts at legality.
A big problem to be found with the way local people thought of land being quite different to the European norm.
https://gatesopenresearch.org/documents/3-982/pdf
Southern Africa absolutely did have lots of treaty interaction with locals - see the kingdoms still existing down there.
Pretty sure Rhodes got his foot in the door in rhodesia via legal trickery with treaties with local kings and conning the British government too.
It's a curious one this idea that white people just marched in and seized land with zero covering legality - it's pushed by both the imperialists who want to deny Africans had any sort of government structure and that the Europeans moved into terra nullis; and by African nationalists who want to paint Africans as pure victims and none of them deserve any blame against the pure foreign conquers that are the whites.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 20, 2023, 02:19:20 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 20, 2023, 01:59:04 PMWhether its in a country's "legal territory" or not doesn't really matter for ethnic cleansing. Most ethnic cleansing does tend to be within legally held territory.
Given the stories coming out about Azerbaijani attorcities against some villages and the whole past 2-3 decades of active attempts to erase even Armenian history in the area I really don't think it was just the locals throwing a huff because their side lost.
Again, you cannot simply say that all ~150,000 Armenians who have made a deliberate choice to move--after being told by Azerbaijan they would have all the normal rights of Azerbaijani citizenship--but would not have special privileges or exemptions from the law or be allowed to run an illegal state-within-a-state, as ethnic cleansing. That is just a very simplistic view of it, and it majorly waters down any moral force in using the term "ethnic cleansing."
To say all 150,000 just innocently decided to move and the threat of azerbaijani rule had nothing to do with it is a far more simplistic interpretation.
Azerbaijans word is clearly not worth much given the events that got us here. And as said. They were already starting the cleansing.
Really can't blame the Armenians for wanting to keep breathing.
QuoteAzerbaijan has no moral imperative to allow part of its country political independence, anymore than the Spanish did or the Americans did in 1861.
It absolutely does. If a region of your country has been pushing for independence for decades then you're quite the POS country to not give them the right to pursue this via legal means.
All people deserve the right of self determination.
Given the history of Armenia and Azerbaijan NK was a particularly obvious example of somewhere in the wrong country via foreign imperialist means.
QuoteThe fact there has been both Azeri-->Armenian and Armenian-->Azeri political violence cannot be extrapolated to paint the entire conflict as ethnic cleansing.
Yes it can. Azerbaijan has absolutely ethnically cleansed it's Armenian population (as did the Armenians the azerbaijanis in NK).
Quote from: Josquius on November 20, 2023, 02:35:22 PMYes it can. Azerbaijan has absolutely ethnically cleansed it's Armenian population (as did the Armenians the azerbaijanis in NK).
So just make sure you get to the ethnic cleansing first so you get to keep the land?
Quote from: Josquius on November 20, 2023, 02:28:24 PMEvery colony is different. There's no one size fits all rule.
From what I gather Kenya is particularly well known for how egregious white land grabs are.
Still. There were attempts at legality.
A big problem to be found with the way local people thought of land being quite different to the European norm.
https://gatesopenresearch.org/documents/3-982/pdf
Southern Africa absolutely did have lots of treaty interaction with locals - see the kingdoms still existing down there.
Pretty sure Rhodes got his foot in the door in rhodesia via legal trickery with treaties with local kings and conning the British government too.
It's a curious one this idea that white people just marched in and seized land with zero covering legality - it's pushed by both the imperialists who want to deny Africans had any sort of government structure and that the Europeans moved into terra nullis; and by African nationalists who want to paint Africans as pure victims and none of them deserve any blame against the pure foreign conquers that are the whites.
I am well aware that white colonial states had treaty dealings in Africa. I also know some of these protectorate relationships were established at the point of a gun and others through less violent means. I also know in some cases land was expropriated from the natives, either administratively as in Kenya's case or by conquest, in the case of the Boers.
What I'm objecting to is your attempt to draw some moral equivalence between Jewish purchases of land during the Ottoman control of Palestine to colonial land grabs in Africa.
So, I'm not sure that it makes the nakba necessarily "okay", but you can't divorce it from what was going on in the wider world at the time. First of all many million germans were in the process of being relocated from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the like in the aftermath of WWII. You were only 25 years removed from millions of Greeks and Turks being relocated between the two countries. Sephardi jews were in the process of being expelled from their homes across the arab world. And of course This was the immediate aftermath of the holocaust, which really brought home the need for a national homeland for the Jews.
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2023, 03:22:53 PMSo, I'm not sure that it makes the nakba necessarily "okay", but you can't divorce it from what was going on in the wider world at the time. First of all many million germans were in the process of being relocated from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the like in the aftermath of WWII. You were only 25 years removed from millions of Greeks and Turks being relocated between the two countries. Sephardi jews were in the process of being expelled from their homes across the arab world. And of course This was the immediate aftermath of the holocaust, which really brought home the need for a national homeland for the Jews.
In none of those examples did any of those people remain stateless. That is the core of the problem of the Nakba
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2023, 03:27:17 PMQuote from: Barrister on November 20, 2023, 03:22:53 PMSo, I'm not sure that it makes the nakba necessarily "okay", but you can't divorce it from what was going on in the wider world at the time. First of all many million germans were in the process of being relocated from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the like in the aftermath of WWII. You were only 25 years removed from millions of Greeks and Turks being relocated between the two countries. Sephardi jews were in the process of being expelled from their homes across the arab world. And of course This was the immediate aftermath of the holocaust, which really brought home the need for a national homeland for the Jews.
In none of those examples did any of those people remain stateless. That is the core of the problem of the Nakba
I'm going to try engaging - don't make me regret it.
Again you have to remember the year - 1948. The idea of a separate "palestinian state" was a foreign one. This was an era of pan-arabism - that all arabs should live in one country, and eventually led to the short-lived United Arab Republic which was a union of Egypt and Syria. Similarly the King of Jordan wanted to form a wider arab nation including Jordan, Syria and Palestine. Almost all of the arab states in the area were recent creations, formed in the aftermath of WWI (one exception being Egypt).
Now that being said I hate this kind of historical determinism - the arab residents of palestine may not have thought of themselves as part of a "palestinian nation" in 1948, but they certainly do in 2023, and that still counts.
But again in 1948 there was no existing State of Palestine. It's not like the Jews just came in and invading an existing nation and took it over. No, you had a former province of the Ottoman empire (that had long been ruled by the Ottomans), that had pre-existing arab-muslim, jewish and arab-Christian populations (and while Christians were in the minority it was a meaningful minority as well). It was being run by the British under a League of Nations mandate that which at first I'm sure the Brits were hoping to incorporate into the empire, but not long after they were just trying to figure out who to turn the place over to.
As Benny Morris noted in his book, there was certainly a lot of talk of "population transfer" (but little evidence the early Israeli state or protostate implemented it as policy), and that was specifically based on the very common practice of the time in using population transfers as a settlement approach to ethnic land conflicts.
Quote from: Josquius on November 20, 2023, 02:35:22 PMTo say all 150,000 just innocently decided to move and the threat of azerbaijani rule had nothing to do with it is a far more simplistic interpretation.
Azerbaijans word is clearly not worth much given the events that got us here. And as said. They were already starting the cleansing.
Really can't blame the Armenians for wanting to keep breathing.
They moved because they lost the war that just got done being fought, and they didn't want to be part of Azerbaijan. The evidence they were facing mass ethnic cleansing is actually fairly specious. There is evidence of ethnic violence--which, by the way, people of both ethnic groups have faced ethnic violence for 30 years.
It is somewhat interesting that you, a typical "pawn" of whatever stupid shit leftists are crying about at any given moment, seem to have only become aware of the Azerbaijan-Armenian conflict in the past 12 months; when it became a (strangely--given the reality that Azerbaijan has received U.S. military funding for 20 years) a cause celebre among low-IQ leftists who paint the Azeri actions as being "caused by Israel" (because Israel has done some relatively small arms deals with Azerbaijan.)
Out here in the real world this is 100+ year old ethnic conflict, and you're being fairly stupid to randomly pick one side as the "good" guys. The Armenians had the upper hand in this conflict after the breakup of the Soviet Union, because Russia strongly patronized them, throughout the 2010s, Azerbaijan steadily built up its military as it became a wealthier country due to fossil fuel resources it started exploiting with the help of more advanced nations. Finally it used those resources to turn the tide on Armenia when their patron up in Moscow got distracted, and Armenia lost.
There is no evidence Azerbaijan was, or planned to, perpetrate any kind of mass genocide against the Armenians. In fact there is meaningful evidence they planned to integrate their region into the norms of the Azerbaijan state.
Now, none of this is to say the Azeris have been balls of European light like we find in progressive countries with 0 racism like the United Kingdom, but there is a big difference between the reality: a long ethnic conflict in which both sides committed humanitarian crimes, but one side eventually won--and did not pursue massacres or etc and even offered the defeated side normal citizenship, and what you are suggesting was going on--which is a mindless claim of "ethnic cleansing."
Ethnic cleansing doesn't many "anytime an ethnic group is mad."
QuoteThey moved because they lost the war that just got done being fought, and they didn't want to be part of Azerbaijan. The evidence they were facing mass ethnic cleansing is actually fairly specious. There is evidence of ethnic violence--which, by the way, people of both ethnic groups have faced ethnic violence for 30 years.
An incredibly naiive pro azerbaijani view point.
No they didn't just storm off in a strop because they lost.
Azerbaijan did a very effective job of locking down reporting from NK nonetheless what happened does not seem kosher.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/nagorno-karabakh-exodus-amounts-war-crime-legal-experts-say-2023-09-29/
QuoteIt is somewhat interesting that you, a typical "pawn" of whatever stupid shit leftists are crying about at any given moment,
LOL. What a stupid ad hom.
Quoteseem to have only become aware of the Azerbaijan-Armenian conflict in the past 12 months; when it became a (strangely--given the reality that Azerbaijan has received U.S. military funding for 20 years) a cause celebre among low-IQ leftists who paint the Azeri actions as being "caused by Israel" (because Israel has done some relatively small arms deals with Azerbaijan.)
Amazing. Yes. It's all red ropes back to the elders of zion in the pentagon isn't it. That's the only possible reason somebody might not approve of ethnic cleansing. Jews. :rolleyes:
This is so off base as to be insane.
QuoteOut here in the real world this is 100+ year old ethnic conflict, and you're being fairly stupid to randomly pick one side as the "good" guys.
Amazing projection. You're the one who seems ignorant as fuck about the reality there.
The Armenians were the "good" guys as you want to call them because they're the ones stalin fucked and who were fighting for self determination in this. They were the ones for whom victory meant nobody else dying.
QuoteThere is no evidence Azerbaijan was, or planned to, perpetrate any kind of mass genocide against the Armenians. In fact there is meaningful evidence they planned to integrate their region into the norms of the Azerbaijan state.
Where is this meaningful evidence then?
Their super special pinky promise that they wouldn't hurt anyone, honest, just ignore their attempts to wipe all memory of Armenians from their land.
As to Armenians Russian links - yes. I've seen this argument before from people who oppose Russia in ukriane just because they're THEM and not out of any support for democracy.
QuoteI am well aware that white colonial states had treaty dealings in Africa. I also know some of these protectorate relationships were established at the point of a gun and others through less violent means. I also know in some cases land was expropriated from the natives, either administratively as in Kenya's case or by conquest, in the case of the Boers.
What I'm objecting to is your attempt to draw some moral equivalence between Jewish purchases of land during the Ottoman control of Palestine to colonial land grabs in Africa
You seem to be changing your position here. You certainly did seem to be unaware.
I never mentioned anything about moral equivalence. I said that there was a legal basis for some of the Jewish land acquisition doesn't necessarily make it not colonialism.
Quote from: HVC on November 20, 2023, 02:40:37 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 20, 2023, 02:35:22 PMYes it can. Azerbaijan has absolutely ethnically cleansed it's Armenian population (as did the Armenians the azerbaijanis in NK).
So just make sure you get to the ethnic cleansing first so you get to keep the land?
Or just not do ethnic cleansing? That's always an option.
Quote from: Josquius on November 20, 2023, 04:39:32 PMYou seem to be changing your position here. You certainly did seem to be unaware.
I never mentioned anything about moral equivalence. I said that there was a legal basis for some of the Jewish land acquisition doesn't necessarily make it not colonialism.
That's a boneheaded inference. I mentioned two out of 54 African countries where there were land grabs and 2 more where there appeared to have been land grabs. You have to be pretty dim to assume based on that I was unaware of any other treaty relationships.
I see. Jewish land acquisition is not necessarily not colonialism but this is not a moral equivalent.
I withdraw boneheaded and dim. Substitute something like unwarranted.
Quote from: Josquius on November 20, 2023, 04:39:32 PMI never mentioned anything about moral equivalence. I said that there was a legal basis for some of the Jewish land acquisition doesn't necessarily make it not colonialism.
I feel like the word "colonialism" has just become a terrible slur, and that just by calling Israel a "settler/colonial state" automatically makes it bad and evil.
With respect there are better and worse forms of colonialism.
This is where I'm going to be a defensive Canadian, but we (that is, Britain and then later Canada) did colonialism the right way. We signed agreements with the local inhabitants. We haven't always been perfect in living up to those agreements but they have been upheld in the courts repeatedly. Indigenous people were not forcefully relocated (there are a couple of exceptions, but it was far from the norm). We certainly didn't fight any wars with the local inhabitants in order to assert ownership.
You can contrast that with the US (which signed treaties, but would break them, and did fight wars), or some of the African land grabs which just arbitrarily divided up the continent without any input from the local inhabitants.
I mean heck - in Canada we had some whole native tribes move from the US to Canada because indigenous people were perceived to be treated so much better.
Applying any terms of "indigenous" to Palestinians goes against how that word has always been used.
The typical definition of indigenous people is "the earliest known group" in a region, often used in reference to a group that has been colonized by a colonizing nation.
Arabs are not the earliest known group in the region. Because we are talking about the Levant here--an area that geographically is right around where civilization and writing started at their earliest points, which means the known history of the area is among the oldest of any region on earth.
Because of that we know the area has had tons of different groups move in, get moved out, assimilate, emerge as new peoples, fight and trade land back and forth etc. There is no clear claim of indigenous status for any extant peoples today to the region that makes up Israel. The region has also been significantly "diverse" with many different ethnic and religious groups cohabiting the same overall area.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 20, 2023, 05:56:57 PMBecause of that we know the area has had tons of different groups move in, get moved out, assimilate, emerge as new peoples, fight and trade land back and forth etc. There is no clear claim of indigenous status for any extant peoples today to the region that makes up Israel. The region has also been significantly "diverse" with many different ethnic and religious groups cohabiting the same overall area.
You have to be careful though - even if you believe the Palestinians are not "indigenous" doesn't mean they have no rights either.
I wonder if genertic studies have been done - to what extent to modern day residents of palestine share genes with more historic inhabitants of the area - either greeks, jews, or pheonicians.
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2023, 05:47:42 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 20, 2023, 04:39:32 PMI never mentioned anything about moral equivalence. I said that there was a legal basis for some of the Jewish land acquisition doesn't necessarily make it not colonialism.
I feel like the word "colonialism" has just become a terrible slur, and that just by calling Israel a "settler/colonial state" automatically makes it bad and evil.
With respect there are better and worse forms of colonialism.
This is where I'm going to be a defensive Canadian, but we (that is, Britain and then later Canada) did colonialism the right way. We signed agreements with the local inhabitants. We haven't always been perfect in living up to those agreements but they have been upheld in the courts repeatedly. Indigenous people were not forcefully relocated (there are a couple of exceptions, but it was far from the norm). We certainly didn't fight any wars with the local inhabitants in order to assert ownership.
You can contrast that with the US (which signed treaties, but would break them, and did fight wars), or some of the African land grabs which just arbitrarily divided up the continent without any input from the local inhabitants.
I mean heck - in Canada we had some whole native tribes move from the US to Canada because indigenous people were perceived to be treated so much better.
That is a terribly misconceived, had an accurate characterization of colonization by Britain within what became known as Canada.
Treaties are almost entirely nonexistent within the province of British Columbia, as just one example. Indigenous communities were certainly forcibly removed from the areas in which they normally lived, hunted and fished. Furthermore, even in circumstances where agreements were made, or more properly representations were made as to what the government would do, those promises were also breached as evidenced by the billions of dollars in settlements modern Canadian governments have had to pay out to compensate for the breaches of those agreements.
Also, the Canadian government pursued an active policy of assimilation in order to destroy all indigenous culture within this country.
I'm shocked that somebody who knows anything about the topic would suggest that Britain and then Canada approached colonization in a way that deserved meritorious comment.
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2023, 03:40:52 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2023, 03:27:17 PMQuote from: Barrister on November 20, 2023, 03:22:53 PMSo, I'm not sure that it makes the nakba necessarily "okay", but you can't divorce it from what was going on in the wider world at the time. First of all many million germans were in the process of being relocated from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the like in the aftermath of WWII. You were only 25 years removed from millions of Greeks and Turks being relocated between the two countries. Sephardi jews were in the process of being expelled from their homes across the arab world. And of course This was the immediate aftermath of the holocaust, which really brought home the need for a national homeland for the Jews.
In none of those examples did any of those people remain stateless. That is the core of the problem of the Nakba
I'm going to try engaging - don't make me regret it.
Again you have to remember the year - 1948. The idea of a separate "palestinian state" was a foreign one. This was an era of pan-arabism - that all arabs should live in one country, and eventually led to the short-lived United Arab Republic which was a union of Egypt and Syria. Similarly the King of Jordan wanted to form a wider arab nation including Jordan, Syria and Palestine. Almost all of the arab states in the area were recent creations, formed in the aftermath of WWI (one exception being Egypt).
Now that being said I hate this kind of historical determinism - the arab residents of palestine may not have thought of themselves as part of a "palestinian nation" in 1948, but they certainly do in 2023, and that still counts.
But again in 1948 there was no existing State of Palestine. It's not like the Jews just came in and invading an existing nation and took it over. No, you had a former province of the Ottoman empire (that had long been ruled by the Ottomans), that had pre-existing arab-muslim, jewish and arab-Christian populations (and while Christians were in the minority it was a meaningful minority as well). It was being run by the British under a League of Nations mandate that which at first I'm sure the Brits were hoping to incorporate into the empire, but not long after they were just trying to figure out who to turn the place over to.
I think you are ignoring both of the UN resolution and the promises that the British government had me to the Palestinian people about creating the state of Palestine after the withdrawal.
I don't think there is much historical support for the notion that the Palestinian people did not think of themselves as a nation state of Palestine. Those were promises that were made to them. Well, it is true that other Arab leaders also had designs on the area that doesn't say anything about with a Palestinians themselves thought.
The Brits were not hoping to incorporate the territory into their empire. They were trying their best to offload the burden on to somebody else and get the hell out. The Zionist terrorist attacks help convince them of that.
Lastly, you haven't grappled with the real issue, which is that none of the other peoples you mentioned ended up stateless. And that is the issue that is the core of the dispute between the Palestinians in the Israelis.
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2023, 06:02:53 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 20, 2023, 05:56:57 PMBecause of that we know the area has had tons of different groups move in, get moved out, assimilate, emerge as new peoples, fight and trade land back and forth etc. There is no clear claim of indigenous status for any extant peoples today to the region that makes up Israel. The region has also been significantly "diverse" with many different ethnic and religious groups cohabiting the same overall area.
You have to be careful though - even if you believe the Palestinians are not "indigenous" doesn't mean they have no rights either.
I wonder if genertic studies have been done - to what extent to modern day residents of palestine share genes with more historic inhabitants of the area - either greeks, jews, or pheonicians.
Not an expert on the genetic studies but my understanding is a large % of the people living in the region are a fairly closely related genetic soup, even if their cultural identifiers may not be one and the same. Anyone who has much experience visiting Israel will frankly note that the "typical" Israeli Jew looks a lot like the typical Israeli Arab. There are certainly people that don't fit that mold, though, in both groups.
Jews got labeled white just into to be demonized for it.
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2023, 03:40:52 PMI'm going to try engaging - don't make me regret it.
And I regretted it.
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2023, 05:47:42 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 20, 2023, 04:39:32 PMI never mentioned anything about moral equivalence. I said that there was a legal basis for some of the Jewish land acquisition doesn't necessarily make it not colonialism.
I feel like the word "colonialism" has just become a terrible slur, and that just by calling Israel a "settler/colonial state" automatically makes it bad and evil.
With respect there are better and worse forms of colonialism.
This is where I'm going to be a defensive Canadian, but we (that is, Britain and then later Canada) did colonialism the right way. We signed agreements with the local inhabitants. We haven't always been perfect in living up to those agreements but they have been upheld in the courts repeatedly. Indigenous people were not forcefully relocated (there are a couple of exceptions, but it was far from the norm). We certainly didn't fight any wars with the local inhabitants in order to assert ownership.
You can contrast that with the US (which signed treaties, but would break them, and did fight wars), or some of the African land grabs which just arbitrarily divided up the continent without any input from the local inhabitants.
I mean heck - in Canada we had some whole native tribes move from the US to Canada because indigenous people were perceived to be treated so much better.
As said its complicated.
No doubt on average Canada did things much better than the US. But looking at the history of colonialism overall you find all manner of things under its banner, some little different to the interactions between European states and others the more text book "Do you have a flag? No? Well I do. Mine.".
Call colonialist a slur if you will, but it does accurately (remembering its a broad word) sum up how Israel came to be. Some would take this to an extreme of therefore it shouldn't exist and all those people born and raised there should leave, which is of course silly. Nonetheless it certainly highlights that there were crimes in the creation of Israel and any lasting peace should seek to compensate for them.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 20, 2023, 05:56:57 PMApplying any terms of "indigenous" to Palestinians goes against how that word has always been used.
The typical definition of indigenous people is "the earliest known group" in a region, often used in reference to a group that has been colonized by a colonizing nation.
Arabs are not the earliest known group in the region. Because we are talking about the Levant here--an area that geographically is right around where civilization and writing started at their earliest points, which means the known history of the area is among the oldest of any region on earth.
Because of that we know the area has had tons of different groups move in, get moved out, assimilate, emerge as new peoples, fight and trade land back and forth etc. There is no clear claim of indigenous status for any extant peoples today to the region that makes up Israel. The region has also been significantly "diverse" with many different ethnic and religious groups cohabiting the same overall area.
The Palestinians despite being Arabic speaking didn't all show up with the Arab conquest. A large chunk of their genetic heritage stretches back into the mists of history covering ancient Israelites and their contemporaries.
This is a really annoying thing I see Israel fanboys often doing- pointing to ancient maps of the area and the existence of biblical Israel and going "See! The Jews were there first!". Aye. And guess who the descendants of those Jews are? The Palestinians.
I'm really not sure about this earliest known group definition of indigenous too. That would mean basically nobody outside of a small handful of groups like the Maori and Australian aborigines are indigenous- though even there surely you often had different groups overrunning other earlier groups.
This is a typical flaw in the right wing world view- that it all must be based on fixed, definable, measurable, rules. You are either A or B.
The world is usually a far fluffier place than this with basically everyone in the western half of Eurasia having a super mixed heritage if you look back far enough.
I love the Guardian headline:
QuoteIsrael-Hamas war live: Hamas leader says 'we are close to reaching a truce' but Israel yet to comment
This can probably be filed next to: "2nd May 1945: Nazi Germany say they are close to reaching a truce, the Allies are yet to comment"
Quote from: Tamas on November 21, 2023, 05:30:51 AMI love the Guardian headline:
QuoteIsrael-Hamas war live: Hamas leader says 'we are close to reaching a truce' but Israel yet to comment
This can probably be filed next to: "2nd May 1945: Nazi Germany say they are close to reaching a truce, the Allies are yet to comment"
Bibi has publicly offered a four day cease fire in exchange for all the hostages, so not created out of thin air.
Quote from: Josquius on November 21, 2023, 04:14:43 AMCall colonialist a slur if you will, but it does accurately (remembering its a broad word) sum up how Israel came to be. Some would take this to an extreme of therefore it shouldn't exist and all those people born and raised there should leave, which is of course silly. Nonetheless it certainly highlights that there were crimes in the creation of Israel and any lasting peace should seek to compensate for them.
What about the creation of Israel can accurately be called colonialism?
The Jews immigrated and bought land under the Ottoman Empire. Tamas immigrated to the UK and bought property. Is he a colonist?
Palestine was partitioned by the UN. India was partitioned by the UK. Is Pakistan a colony?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2023, 01:31:16 PMWhat about the creation of Israel can accurately be called colonialism?
If you want Josq's answer in real time just look on a .ru domain site or some communist activist website and you'll be there.
Russia is on your side nowadays OvB.
Quote from: Jacob on November 21, 2023, 01:41:21 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on November 21, 2023, 01:39:10 PMRussia is on your side nowadays OvB.
Eh?
How so?
His general side, not Israel is right. Russia is a proto-fascist state, OvB is, historically, too.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 21, 2023, 01:31:54 PMIf you want Josq's answer in real time just look on a .ru domain site or some communist activist website and you'll be there.
I don't just want a flameware answer. I want to enter into a conversation. I want to enter into a dialectic. I can't do that on a troll site.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 21, 2023, 01:31:54 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2023, 01:31:16 PMWhat about the creation of Israel can accurately be called colonialism?
If you want Josq's answer in real time just look on a .ru domain site or some communist activist website and you'll be there.
Again with the useful idiot and his projection. You're the only one mindlessly parroting whatever crap the Russian troll farms are putting out these days.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2023, 01:31:16 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 21, 2023, 04:14:43 AMCall colonialist a slur if you will, but it does accurately (remembering its a broad word) sum up how Israel came to be. Some would take this to an extreme of therefore it shouldn't exist and all those people born and raised there should leave, which is of course silly. Nonetheless it certainly highlights that there were crimes in the creation of Israel and any lasting peace should seek to compensate for them.
What about the creation of Israel can accurately be called colonialism?
The Jews immigrated and bought land under the Ottoman Empire. Tamas immigrated to the UK and bought property. Is he a colonist?
Palestine was partitioned by the UN. India was partitioned by the UK. Is Pakistan a colony?
..
https://jewishstudies.washington.edu/israel-hebrew/why-israel-isnt-a-settler-colonial-state/
They claim it isn't a colonial state. But their evidence clearly shows its history is as one with the settlers themselves considering it colonialism.
The basis under which these guys claim it isn't is that it wasn't for the benefit of a metropole. Which seems a chronic misunderstanding of colonialist motivations.
NPR reporting a deal in the works. 4 day cease fire, 50 Israeli children and women hostages for 150 Palestinian children and women prisoners.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/from-the-river-to-the-sea-palestine-1.7033881
Terrible CBC article about the phrase "From the River to the Sea".
Spoiler warning: the phrase is fine, mostly.
Ultimately they quote four different experts. Three of them feel the phrase is fine, pointing to different ways the phrase has been used historically and currently. They are quoted extensively. There is one person quoted who says it is hate speech saying "because it is into the sea that they seek to send the Jews". That is the sum total that he is quoted in the entire article, while the others are quoted extensively.
The article also makes sure to include a graph of representative Israeli vs Palestinian casualties since 2009, even though noting that the casualty totals are estimates only in the fine print. So of course this makes it seem like the Israelis have nothing to complain about from Oct 7. The graph has nothing to do with the meaning of "from the river to the sea", and of course makes no attempt to distinguish between civilian and military casualties.
So of course language can be nebulous. I have no doubt that when some people talk about "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" they only mean civil rights for Palestinians. But you can't possibly separate it from A: what does Hamas mean when they say it (hint: they call for the destruction of Israel) and B: the context that it's being chanted in the aftermath of the deliberate murder of 1200 Israeli civilians.
So anyways, if anyone wants an example of how the CBC can appear fair and neutral, but really be pretty biased, here's an example.
Edit: one more point. They compare it to the phrase "black lives matter". The problem is that while phrases can have meaning infused on them through context and history, they also have a very plain and literal meaning. The very literal meaning of "black lives matter" should be 100% uncontroversial. Of course black lives matter. The problem is "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" has a pretty obvious and literal meaning as well - that a country of Palestine should exist in the entire territory of Israel and the occupied territories. A better comparison would be "defund the police", which yes some people meant as just reforming the police, but the literal meaning is to abolish the police.
Quote from: Barrister on November 21, 2023, 03:40:25 PM.
Edit: one more point. They compare it to the phrase "black lives matter". The problem is that while phrases can have meaning infused on them through context and history, they also have a very plain and literal meaning. The very literal meaning of "black lives matter" should be 100% uncontroversial. Of course black lives matter. The problem is "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" has a pretty obvious and literal meaning as well - that a country of Palestine should exist in the entire territory of Israel and the occupied territories. A better comparison would be "defund the police", which yes some people meant as just reforming the police, but the literal meaning is to abolish the police.
Only if you believe Palestinian freedom is somehow connected to Israelis not being free.
Purely just looking at the words themselves saying a land should be free is pretty uncontroversial.
A land free of what?
All these experts telling me what it *can* mean are beside the point. What I care about is what the people who chant it actually mean.
I thought this was useful. https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20Opinion%20Poll%20-%20Gaza%20War%202023%20-%20Tables%20of%20Results.pdf
(https://i.imgur.com/xvkDbdE.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/cmH52Z2.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Y7aWZLx.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/JAUkjyt.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/TlfTohE.png)
Quote from: Josquius on November 21, 2023, 02:45:52 PMhttps://jewishstudies.washington.edu/israel-hebrew/why-israel-isnt-a-settler-colonial-state/
They claim it isn't a colonial state. But their evidence clearly shows its history is as one with the settlers themselves considering it colonialism.
The basis under which these guys claim it isn't is that it wasn't for the benefit of a metropole. Which seems a chronic misunderstanding of colonialist motivations.
Well, the text in your link says the early settlers thought of themselves as colonists, not as partaking in colonialism.
I concede the limited point that early settlers can fairly be called colonists. Much like the Volga Germans for example. They were organized, they presumably wanted a home in which they could maintain their culture and identity.
The problem then becomes your effortless pivot from that point to the crimes committed. Traditional white colonists engaged in a number of crimes, well documented. Just calling the Jewish settlers colonists doesn't make them guilty of those same crimes.
Interesting.
Seems like Hamas has strong support (with caveats for whether people feel safe to answer honestly), but that their support is stronger on the West Bank (61.9% very positive and 5.6% very negative) vs the Gaza Strip (28.9% very positive and 22.7% very negative).
Fewer people support the Hamas attack on Oct 7th on the Gaza Strip (a bit more than 70% either extremely or somewhat support the attacks) than on the West Bank (more than 80%), but in both cases the more than half.
More than 70% of the population on both territories support "a Palestinian State from the river to the sea" over a two state solution, or a one state multiethnic one.
Assuming the data is good, of course.
My guess is that Hamas is better liked when it is far away and fighting the Jews. Less so when it is near and oppresses people.
Table 31 is interesting. A plurality think the babies were roasted to "stop the violations of Aqsa."
Quote from: Barrister on November 21, 2023, 03:40:25 PMThe problem is "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" has a pretty obvious and literal meaning as well - that a country of Palestine should exist in the entire territory of Israel and the occupied territories.
I'm pretty sure the Muslims/Palestinians/Lefty Western Patsies would rather use "Juden raus" but that might be a bit too obvious as to what they want.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2023, 04:56:51 PMA land free of what?
of jews of course.
So Albanians becoming tbe majority in Kosovo was colonialism as well for example?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2023, 05:44:57 PMTable 31 is interesting. A plurality think the babies were roasted to "stop the violations of Aqsa."
I do not think the question was phrased in that way. :roll:
Please take note of how the first question is phrased.
Also, given Abbas recent comments about Israel attacking its own people at the music festival with attack helicopters, I am uncertain as to the extent of the beliefs that Hamas committed the worst of the crimes it is accused of. Conspiracy theories run wild in these part of the world, especially when it touches Israel and Jewish people.
Hamas still denies attacking civilians, I believe. Lots of people there would believe them. Even here in Canada, there are Muslims who would consider Hamas as a simple resistance movement and refuse to label it as a terrorist organization. But we've discussed the problem of Muslim charities before.
Anyway. It's what Bibi wanted. Hamas is an asset after all. What kind of asset roasts babies I do not know, but you shall have to ask him and the members of his government.
Quote from: Tamas on November 21, 2023, 06:28:02 PMSo Albanians becoming tbe majority in Kosovo was colonialism as well for example?
I'm not familiar enough with the antique and medieval history of Kosovo to discuss this. I've no idea of the number of Albanoi in Kosovo compared to other Illyrian tribes before the Roman conquest of the territory. I do not know how the Hunnic and Slavic invasions changed the cultural landscape of the area. I do not think there is an historical or archeological consensus either on the origins of the modern Albanians, so I feel it's kinda pointless to talk about colonialism here? These people seem to have been there for a while, no? Do you consider modern French to be colonists? I'm not sure I would categorize all of them as descendants of the Gauls. Nor are modern day people of Norwich the descendants of the Icenis.
In any case, I would strongly argue against anyone killing or forcefully displacing Albanians from Kosovo today.
At some point in time, people stop being colonists. And no, I don't know when that happens, when we stop referring to people as settlers or colonists. I would not define myself as a settler or colonist, by my first ancestors to come in this country certainly where. Their intentions was to lay the base for a new society, with new rules, New France.
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2023, 05:47:42 PMWe certainly didn't fight any wars with the local inhabitants in order to assert ownership.
Not as bad as the US, but still false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_of_the_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America
It involved mostly the colony of B-C, since Canada did not yet extend there and our process was different from the US. But there were armed conflicts.
Also, during the Great Sioux War, Sitting Bull was granted refuge in Canada, but then left to starve and forced to surrender in the US.
Quote from: Josquius on November 21, 2023, 04:40:16 PMOnly if you believe Palestinian freedom is somehow connected to Israelis not being free.
Purely just looking at the words themselves saying a land should be free is pretty uncontroversial.
Parse the words themselves.
The saying is not "From the river to the sea, PALESTINIANS will be free".
No, they chant "From the river to the sea, PALESTINE will be free".
I trust you can see the distinction.
But in any event, I didn't so much want to debate those words. I conceded some may have a less menacing and genocidal usage when they say those words. You could have an interesting article on the phrase.
I more wanted to call attention to how badly one-sided that CBC article was.
This just in: Ceasefire agreed. 4 days. 50 Israeli women and children hostages exchanged for 150 Palestinian women and children prisoners. Resupplies also to be admitted to Gaza. Possibility of longer ceasefire - 1 day for every 10 hostages freed.
Ratified by the Israeli government via vote. Opponents have 24 hours to appeal to the Supreme Court, apparently.
Wait, why does Israel have women and children prisoners? These criminals, or just sweeped up?
Quote from: HVC on November 21, 2023, 10:36:21 PMWait, why does Israel have women and children prisoners? These criminals, or just sweeped up?
So I have no precise knowledge other than to say that Hamas has never shied away from using women and children as suicide bombers.
Quote from: Barrister on November 22, 2023, 12:03:26 AMQuote from: HVC on November 21, 2023, 10:36:21 PMWait, why does Israel have women and children prisoners? These criminals, or just sweeped up?
So I have no precise knowledge other than to say that Hamas has never shied away from using women and children as suicide bombers.
Doesn't the nature of that particular crime preclude being made a prisoner, what with the blowing oneself up?
QuoteParse the words themselves.
The saying is not "From the river to the sea, PALESTINIANS will be free".
No, they chant "From the river to the sea, PALESTINE will be free".
I trust you can see the distinction.
But in any event, I didn't so much want to debate those words. I conceded some may have a less menacing and genocidal usage when they say those words. You could have an interesting article on the phrase.
I more wanted to call attention to how badly one-sided that CBC article was.
1: Taking Palestine to mean Palestine the country as we know it today... Again just looking at the wording and ignoring the nutters usage of it- it doesn't necessarily mean Israel has to go. The West Bank is on the river as its defining feature, Gaza is on the sea, all of Palestine across this stretch should be free. Fine.
2: Taking Palestine to mean the region... I'd say a full democratic and peaceful Israel and a full democratic and peaceful Palestine within their current borders would tick the box of Palestine being free. Or if a one state solution is more your thing, a big united Palestine doesn't necessarily have to be one where Jews are forbidden.
As to the article...its entire setup is clearly to present the other point of view to the dominant one that it's a safe assumption all readers will know and is quickly summed up in the opening and mentioned often throughout.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2023, 05:28:37 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 21, 2023, 02:45:52 PMhttps://jewishstudies.washington.edu/israel-hebrew/why-israel-isnt-a-settler-colonial-state/
They claim it isn't a colonial state. But their evidence clearly shows its history is as one with the settlers themselves considering it colonialism.
The basis under which these guys claim it isn't is that it wasn't for the benefit of a metropole. Which seems a chronic misunderstanding of colonialist motivations.
Well, the text in your link says the early settlers thought of themselves as colonists, not as partaking in colonialism.
I concede the limited point that early settlers can fairly be called colonists. Much like the Volga Germans for example. They were organized, they presumably wanted a home in which they could maintain their culture and identity.
The problem then becomes your effortless pivot from that point to the crimes committed. Traditional white colonists engaged in a number of crimes, well documented. Just calling the Jewish settlers colonists doesn't make them guilty of those same crimes.
Israel as colonial says nothing about crimes.
Plenty of previous uninhabited islands were colonial without criminality being inherent.
Israel's continued illegal seizure of Palestinian lands is what is illegal, whatever Israel's history.
Now that the long-demanded cease fire is a thing, Owen Jones moves quickly to point out the rage over israeli crimes should continue regardless: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/22/gaza-children-death-toll-israel-hamas
It's fascinating how his ilk can't even be bothered to make a cursory dishonest mention of the victims of Hamas.
Quote from: Tamas on November 22, 2023, 05:29:59 AMNow that the long-demanded cease fire is a thing, Owen Jones moves quickly to point out the rage over israeli crimes should continue regardless: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/22/gaza-children-death-toll-israel-hamas
It's fascinating how his ilk can't even be bothered to make a cursory dishonest mention of the victims of Hamas.
It isn't worth giving him the time of day.
It's because they're jewhaters. After all, our cities are being flooded with massive protests against the actual genocide happening in darfur... again! All those Muslims and lefties demanding an end to the fighting... oh wait, they don't give a shit cause no jews
Quote from: garbon on November 22, 2023, 05:51:52 AMQuote from: Tamas on November 22, 2023, 05:29:59 AMNow that the long-demanded cease fire is a thing, Owen Jones moves quickly to point out the rage over israeli crimes should continue regardless: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/22/gaza-children-death-toll-israel-hamas
It's fascinating how his ilk can't even be bothered to make a cursory dishonest mention of the victims of Hamas.
It isn't worth giving him the time of day.
Yes. Please don't click on his articles. Every click encourages the Guardian to keep giving him column inches
Quote from: Barrister on November 22, 2023, 12:03:26 AMQuote from: HVC on November 21, 2023, 10:36:21 PMWait, why does Israel have women and children prisoners? These criminals, or just sweeped up?
So I have no precise knowledge other than to say that Hamas has never shied away from using women and children as suicide bombers.
Israel does not arrest only criminals. It often arrests regular protestors along real criminals.
In 2012, Breaking the Silence, an organization founded by former Israeli soldiers whose purpose is to expose alleged abuses committed by the Israeli Defense Forces released a booklet of witness reports written by more than 30 former Israeli soldiers. These reports document of Palestinian children being beaten, intimidated, humiliated, verbally abused and injured by Israeli soldiers. Eran Efrati, a former IDF commander on the West Bank has said that ill-treatment of arrested children is routine. He himself admits to having arrested children aged 11 and over as though they were adults, with handcuffs and blindfolds:
Quote'When the kid is sitting there in the base, I didn't do it, but nobody is thinking of him as a kid, you know—if there is someone blindfolded and handcuffed, he's probably done something really bad. It's OK to slap him, it's OK to spit on him, it's OK to kick him sometimes. It doesn't really matter.'[67]
700 of the 9,000 Palestinians arrested in 2013 were children.[67] An Israeli Defense Forces spokesperson said the Breaking the Silence group had declined to provide the IDF with testimonies for verification, and Danny Lamm, president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, said these types of testimonies are "anonymous ... devoid of critical detail and untested by any kind of cross-questioning."[68][69]
Between 2014 and 2015, the military prosecuted indictments against 1,046 Palestinian minors.[70] The non-governmental organization, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, Accuse the Israeli forces of orchestring "their actions" to "humiliate and terrorize Palestinian children".[71]
Child detention
In September 2009, after documentation emerged showing Palestinians children as young as 12 were prosecuted in adult military courts, Israel established a juvenile military court, 'the first and only juvenile military court in operation in the world.' Military Order 1651 establishes a maximum 6 months sentence for children aged 12–13, and 12 months for juniors aged 14–15, unless the offence involves throwing stones at persons or property with the intent to damage, in which case 10 years imprisonment is the maximum penalty.[72]
In one case, a 5-year-old child has been detailed on allegations he threw stones in Hebron. The IDF said that the boy had endangered passers-by and that soldiers only accompanied him to his parents. It stated that the child was not arrested and no charges were filed.[73][74][75]
A separate study, conducted from 2005 until 2010 was released in mid-2011 by the Jerusalem-based non-profit B'Tselem, found that the actions of the IDF potentially violated the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Fourth Geneva Convention.[76]
According to a March 2013 report by the United Nations Children's Fund ("UNICEF"), Israel has arrested some 7,000 Palestinian children; 18 of 27 arrested in Hebron in March 2013 were below the age of 12.[51][77] The report was based on 400 cases documented since 2009. It stated that the Palestinian children who are detained by the Israeli military are subjected to "widespread, systematic and institutionalized" ill treatment in violation of international law. UNICEF estimated that in the West Bank IDF and Israeli security services annually arrest around 700 youths between 12 and 17 years old. The report supported claims that the arrests were often made, without notice, in private homes at night. It reports that children are blindfolded, painfully restrained, and subjected to physical and verbal abuse while being detained, sometimes in solitary confinement.
The report further claims that, once in detention, they are interrogated and coerced into confession, without immediate access to a legal counsel or family members.[78] Signed confessions are typically typed in Hebrew, which few Palestinian minors can read. As of January 2013, Israeli military prisons held 233 males under 18, 31 under the age of 16.[79] Additionally, children are shackled during court appearances and made to serve sentences in Israel. UNICEF stated these findings "amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention against Torture".[78]
About 60 percent of arrested minors are charged with throwing rocks at soldiers or passing cars,[79] which the IDF regards as a form of terrorism as it has led to the death and injury of Israelis, including of children.[80]
The UNICEF report noted that Israel had made some positive changes over recent years, such as hand tying measures that do not cause pain or injury.[78] It urged Israel to refrain from blindfolding minors and holding them in solitary confinement, to permit an attorney or family member to attend interrogations, and to record interrogations to document any false claims of abuse. Israel's Foreign Ministry said Israel's military was already making changes to cooperate with the United Nations, including reducing holding time before seeing a judge to 48 hours, telling parents about arrest of children, and informing children of their right to consult a lawyer. UNICEF replied that the changes were insufficiently specific.[79] Israeli Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor stated that "Israel will study the conclusions and will work to implement them through ongoing cooperation with UNICEF, whose work we value and respect".[78] In October 2013, UNICEF reported that the IDF was introducing changes in its arrest of minors in a pilot-test programme, but according to Haaretz the policy had not at that date been implemented and was still under study.[81]
January 2015, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor has issued a press release about Israeli detention of a Palestinian girl. The monitor said that Malak Al-Khatib, 14 year old-Palestinian girl, has been imprisoned by Israeli authorities for 22 consecutive days without contact with her parents, and has just been sentenced to serve another month along with a stiff fine on her parents. In addition, the monitor said that another four children as young as 11 were recently held for four hours under threat of detention and death. The Euro-Med Monitor has condemned Israel's policy of detaining children and subjecting them to abusive and inhumane treatment.[82]
There is also the question of Human shields used by... the IDF.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflictAnd obviously, there are child soldiers used by the various terrorist factions, and the children raised to be good terrorists later.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 22, 2023, 05:54:17 AMIt's because they're jewhaters. After all, our cities are being flooded with massive protests against the actual genocide happening in darfur... again! All those Muslims and lefties demanding an end to the fighting... oh wait, they don't give a shit cause no jews
Nobody gives a shit about Africa. Ever.
Quote from: Josquius on November 22, 2023, 04:40:00 AMIsrael as colonial says nothing about crimes.
Plenty of previous uninhabited islands were colonial without criminality being inherent.
Israel's continued illegal seizure of Palestinian lands is what is illegal, whatever Israel's history.
Okey dokey.
What, if anything, do you have to say to people who use colonial as an epithet, as an accusation in regards to Israel?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2023, 11:09:59 AMQuote from: Josquius on November 22, 2023, 04:40:00 AMIsrael as colonial says nothing about crimes.
Plenty of previous uninhabited islands were colonial without criminality being inherent.
Israel's continued illegal seizure of Palestinian lands is what is illegal, whatever Israel's history.
Okey dokey.
What, if anything, do you have to say to people who use colonial as an epithet, as an accusation in regards to Israel?
It depends what they're speaking about really. If they're on about Israel's very existence then they're either far right islamic extremist types or tankies so its a good disclaimer they're probably not worth talking to.
If they're speaking about the West Bank et al and Israel's continued colonialism...then it is a marker they aren't afraid of upsetting the Israel lobby and there's a chance they're amongst those who know what they're talking about.
If they're just speaking purely about history then... "Yes".
I wonder if the Palestinian prisoners being exchanged are like "no....keep us here until AFTER the war."
The Israel lobby. :rolleyes:
75% of Palestinians want Israel gone. This isn't some fringe belief.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2023, 11:55:31 AMThe Israel lobby. :rolleyes:
75% of Palestinians want Israel gone. This isn't some fringe belief.
:lol:
Typical of someone who has fully swallowed that stuff to pick up solely on that bit.
And no. 75% of Palestinians have said nothing of the sort. Plus we aren't talking about Palestinians here.
Quote from: Josquius on November 22, 2023, 01:28:15 PMQuote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2023, 11:55:31 AMThe Israel lobby. :rolleyes:
75% of Palestinians want Israel gone. This isn't some fringe belief.
:lol:
Typical of someone who has fully swallowed that stuff to pick up solely on that bit.
And no. 75% of Palestinians have said nothing of the sort. Plus we aren't talking about Palestinians here.
You're right - it was only 74.7% of Palestinians.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/new-poll-shows-palestinians-are-the-impediment-to-peace-not-israels-war
Quote from: Barrister on November 22, 2023, 01:31:50 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 22, 2023, 01:28:15 PMQuote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2023, 11:55:31 AMThe Israel lobby. :rolleyes:
75% of Palestinians want Israel gone. This isn't some fringe belief.
:lol:
Typical of someone who has fully swallowed that stuff to pick up solely on that bit.
And no. 75% of Palestinians have said nothing of the sort. Plus we aren't talking about Palestinians here.
You're right - it was only 74.7% of Palestinians.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/new-poll-shows-palestinians-are-the-impediment-to-peace-not-israels-war
To be fair where they live they run the risk of being Jihaded if they don't answer the properly Jihadic answer.
Quote from: Barrister on November 22, 2023, 01:31:50 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 22, 2023, 01:28:15 PMQuote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2023, 11:55:31 AMThe Israel lobby. :rolleyes:
75% of Palestinians want Israel gone. This isn't some fringe belief.
:lol:
Typical of someone who has fully swallowed that stuff to pick up solely on that bit.
And no. 75% of Palestinians have said nothing of the sort. Plus we aren't talking about Palestinians here.
You're right - it was only 74.7% of Palestinians.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/new-poll-shows-palestinians-are-the-impediment-to-peace-not-israels-war
Now that's what I call a biased article.
Supporting a one state solution isn't the same thing as the implied genocide of Israelis.
Even if we assume they all mean it that way... Do you not think current events might somewhat sway views?
Quote from: Josquius on November 22, 2023, 02:11:48 PMNow that's what I call a biased article.
Supporting a one state solution isn't the same thing as the implied genocide of Israelis.
It gets a lot closer to genocide when you factor in Raz's survey about attitudes towards Hamas. And Hamas' charter.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2023, 02:39:16 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 22, 2023, 02:11:48 PMNow that's what I call a biased article.
Supporting a one state solution isn't the same thing as the implied genocide of Israelis.
It gets a lot closer to genocide when you factor in Raz's survey about attitudes towards Hamas. And Hamas' charter.
The 10% who want a Hamas government?
Quote from: Josquius on November 22, 2023, 02:52:37 PMThe 10% who want a Hamas government?
I don't understand the question.
Quote from: Josquius on November 22, 2023, 02:11:48 PMQuote from: Barrister on November 22, 2023, 01:31:50 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 22, 2023, 01:28:15 PMQuote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2023, 11:55:31 AMThe Israel lobby. :rolleyes:
75% of Palestinians want Israel gone. This isn't some fringe belief.
:lol:
Typical of someone who has fully swallowed that stuff to pick up solely on that bit.
And no. 75% of Palestinians have said nothing of the sort. Plus we aren't talking about Palestinians here.
You're right - it was only 74.7% of Palestinians.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/new-poll-shows-palestinians-are-the-impediment-to-peace-not-israels-war
Now that's what I call a biased article.
Supporting a one state solution isn't the same thing as the implied genocide of Israelis.
Even if we assume they all mean it that way... Do you not think current events might somewhat sway views?
If you don't like the article there's an embedded link to the survey itself. That being said I don't see it as biased - it's just reporting the results of the survey. It is however listed as an opinion piece, so it's allowed to have some bias.
The survey itself never asks "do you think the Jews should all be killed" so I'm not implying anything about Palestinian attitudes towards genocide. I think it worth noting however that 59.3% of Palestinians surveyed strongly supported the October 7 attacks, with another 15.7% somewhat supporting the attacks. When 75% of Palestinians want all of "between the river and the sea" to be a Palestinian state, and 75% of Palestinians support the October 7 terrorist attacks, it makes me a lot less hopeful for peace.
Quote from: Josquius on November 22, 2023, 01:28:15 PMQuote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2023, 11:55:31 AMThe Israel lobby. :rolleyes:
75% of Palestinians want Israel gone. This isn't some fringe belief.
:lol:
Typical of someone who has fully swallowed that stuff to pick up solely on that bit.
And no. 75% of Palestinians have said nothing of the sort. Plus we aren't talking about Palestinians here.
I posted a survey. It also gave Hamas support at about 75% in Palestine.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2023, 05:00:44 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 22, 2023, 01:28:15 PMQuote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2023, 11:55:31 AMThe Israel lobby. :rolleyes:
75% of Palestinians want Israel gone. This isn't some fringe belief.
:lol:
Typical of someone who has fully swallowed that stuff to pick up solely on that bit.
And no. 75% of Palestinians have said nothing of the sort. Plus we aren't talking about Palestinians here.
I posted a survey. It also gave Hamas support at about 75% in Palestine.
Your source is entirely inconsistent with all of the other data.
You guys catch stuart seldowitz racist rant at a halal food truck guy? Former deputy director of the United States Department of State's Office of Israel and Palestinian Affairs to put it in perspective.
A choice quote being " If we killed 4,000 Palestinian kids, you know what? It wasn't enough. It wasn't enough."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2023, 02:39:16 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 22, 2023, 02:11:48 PMNow that's what I call a biased article.
Supporting a one state solution isn't the same thing as the implied genocide of Israelis.
It gets a lot closer to genocide when you factor in Raz's survey about attitudes towards Hamas. And Hamas' charter.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israeli-polls-regarding-peace-with-the-palestinians]Israeli attitude toward peace (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/palestinian-attitudes-about-peace-with-israel)
Palestinian attitude toward peace (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/palestinian-attitudes-about-peace-with-israel)
There has been a marked decline of Palestinians convictions that peace with Israel is achievable. I do wonder why. Could it be that they see the settlement and the attitude of Israel toward them as a problem?
I think asking the question is answering it.
The pro-Israel side is talking like it's been a status quo since 2000 and there was a functioning Palestinian state left alone peacefully in its corner that only maliciously attacked poor Israel forced to defend itself.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 22, 2023, 05:38:45 PMYour source is entirely inconsistent with all of the other data.
The wishcasting that either of these groups can be trusted is depressing.
In any case even if 10% support Hamas and 90% support somebody else I don't see much evidence those 90% like something I am going to be excited about.
When I hold Israelis responsible for the people they support suddenly that is ok. But if I dare point out the actions the Palestinians take suddenly the "data" says something else. Not data that has ever had any actual impact anywhere but I guess it is exists. Magic copium data. The actual data of decades of history says something quite different.
Eventually the Palestinians will get another chance to show they are in favor of peace and justice and, like the other dozens of opportunities they have had, they will show otherwise. I will be delighted to be wrong but don't try to piss on me and tell me it is raining. A large enough number of Palestinians want victory over Israel and will lie and say whatever they can to bring that about. A large enough number to poison any and everything. Thinking anything else is wishful thinking IMO.
And I am not saying the Israelis are much better, especially not the gang of assholes currently in power.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 22, 2023, 05:38:45 PMQuote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2023, 05:00:44 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 22, 2023, 01:28:15 PMQuote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2023, 11:55:31 AMThe Israel lobby. :rolleyes:
75% of Palestinians want Israel gone. This isn't some fringe belief.
:lol:
Typical of someone who has fully swallowed that stuff to pick up solely on that bit.
And no. 75% of Palestinians have said nothing of the sort. Plus we aren't talking about Palestinians here.
I posted a survey. It also gave Hamas support at about 75% in Palestine.
Your source is entirely inconsistent with all of the other data.
All other data = your personal opinon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8B9Is2gT3Q
Video of Seldowitz going off.
He came back over a 2 week period to rehash. He'd fit right in here :D
Saying "KIlling 4,000 children is not enough" is fucked in the head and evil.
Quote from: Jacob on November 22, 2023, 09:12:01 PMSaying "KIlling 4,000 children is not enough" is fucked in the head and evil.
Also threatened to have Egyptian secret service abduct and torture his dad. Insinuated the guy rapes his own daughter. Class act all around. And again worked for the United States Department of State's Office of Israel and Palestinian Affairs
Quote from: Valmy on November 22, 2023, 06:44:08 PMIn any case even if 10% support Hamas and 90% support somebody else I don't see much evidence those 90% like something I am going to be excited about.
I don't think the Palestinians are in favor of "peace and justice" as you and I would define it after so many long years of warfare.
The links I posted above marked a net decrease in the belief that peace is possible on both side.
And previous links I posted before have Shin Beth warning the government over the years (nothing new) that its policies have increased the radicalization of Palestinians and pushed them away from the PA toward more aggressive movements. Again, nothing surprising here. Not an excuse, but I understand the trend: people are getting attacked, their "government" is unable to help them, the IDF either helps or watches silently has it happens.
And there's a tendency in this part of the world for justice to mean that "you kill one of mine I will kill 10 of yours if I can". So a settler kills a Palestinian boy by beating him and setting him on fire. A group of Palestinian militants targets Isreali civilians somewhere as vengeance. So the IDF starts killing Palestinians as retribution and razing their homes. More Palestinians throw rocks at soldiers. Palestinian children get arrested.
It's a fucking cycle of inferno.
Quote from: viper37 on November 22, 2023, 06:27:41 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2023, 02:39:16 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 22, 2023, 02:11:48 PMNow that's what I call a biased article.
Supporting a one state solution isn't the same thing as the implied genocide of Israelis.
It gets a lot closer to genocide when you factor in Raz's survey about attitudes towards Hamas. And Hamas' charter.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israeli-polls-regarding-peace-with-the-palestinians]Israeli attitude toward peace (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/palestinian-attitudes-about-peace-with-israel)
Palestinian attitude toward peace (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/palestinian-attitudes-about-peace-with-israel)
There has been a marked decline of Palestinians convictions that peace with Israel is achievable. I do wonder why. Could it be that they see the settlement and the attitude of Israel toward them as a problem?
I think asking the question is answering it.
The pro-Israel side is talking like it's been a status quo since 2000 and there was a functioning Palestinian state left alone peacefully in its corner that only maliciously attacked poor Israel forced to defend itself.
Also worth considering long vs. short term attitudes too.
I don't doubt current events have damaged things in the long term, but I very much doubt it'd be to the extent of the short term dip. Just go do a poll of Ukrainians/Russians and what they think of each other today vs. 15 years ago and (you'll need to wait or time travel) in 15 years time.
Or look at the state of American propaganda and belief about Japan during the war.
I think you guys dismissing those Palestinian polls (except for my own caveat of try living in that part of the world and give an honest answer when somebody cold-calls you) are in contradiction with your other stance on Israel putting Palestinians into a great plight.
If the latter is true then why would it be surprising that they have extreme views about Israel?
Quote from: Tamas on November 23, 2023, 04:22:19 AMI think you guys dismissing those Palestinian polls (except for my own caveat of try living in that part of the world and give an honest answer when somebody cold-calls you) are in contradiction with your other stance on Israel putting Palestinians into a great plight.
If the latter is true then why would it be surprising that they have extreme views about Israel?
As said, one poll asked at a time when bombs are dropping on your head vs. the overall picture.
Some are using this poll where the Palestinians are pissed as justification for what made them pissed in the first place.
Also as noted some twisting of what was actually found in that poll.
Apparently Chinese censors let anti-semitism in the wake of war to run free: https://youtu.be/cPpztJY_33w
Quote from: Valmy on November 22, 2023, 06:44:08 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 22, 2023, 05:38:45 PMYour source is entirely inconsistent with all of the other data.
The wishcasting that either of these groups can be trusted is depressing.
In any case even if 10% support Hamas and 90% support somebody else I don't see much evidence those 90% like something I am going to be excited about.
When I hold Israelis responsible for the people they support suddenly that is ok. But if I dare point out the actions the Palestinians take suddenly the "data" says something else. Not data that has ever had any actual impact anywhere but I guess it is exists. Magic copium data. The actual data of decades of history says something quite different.
Eventually the Palestinians will get another chance to show they are in favor of peace and justice and, like the other dozens of opportunities they have had, they will show otherwise. I will be delighted to be wrong but don't try to piss on me and tell me it is raining. A large enough number of Palestinians want victory over Israel and will lie and say whatever they can to bring that about. A large enough number to poison any and everything. Thinking anything else is wishful thinking IMO.
And I am not saying the Israelis are much better, especially not the gang of assholes currently in power.
Is this a knee-jerk reaction or have you actually studied the surveys that were done prior to October 7? There is nothing "sudden" about the studies that have examined the use of Palestinians, and in particular, the support that might exist for Hamas. If you want to actually look at the data in a serious way, you might look at the scholarly work that has gone someway to validate the survey results that show that Hammas does not have support.
This includes a survey that coincidently ended just before the events of October 7 conducted by an international organization, not affiliated with any Palestinian group.
The problem with social media is people throughout all kinds of personal views that aren't based on anything of substance. It in flames everybody else, and it makes the whole situation worse.
A few examples of Palestinian cartoons.
This ones says "Good morning Palestine" It was after some knife attacks about 10 years back
(https://i.imgur.com/T3kB9Wc.jpg)
This one was after a knife attack on a bus that wounded 10 people
(https://i.imgur.com/RJcukWB.jpg)
This one was after an attack on a synagogue.
(https://i.imgur.com/XbDgDPO.jpg)
I think this one was part of the same campaign to get people to attack random Jews with kitchen equipment.
(https://i.imgur.com/zSNNNGE.jpg)
Those are pretty heinous, Raz. That said, you can find plenty of content dehumanizing Palestinians and celebrating their suffering if you care to look for it.
This isn't about dehumanizing it's about encouraging people to murder Jews. Both Hamas and the PA produce stuff like this and actively encourage people to kill people with knifes and cleavers.
I did try to find something encouraging the murder of Palestinians but the best I found were those Charlie Hebdo cartoons from way back.
Re: polling - here's the complete data set of the poll discussed a little earlier in the thread (https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20Opinion%20Poll%20-%20Gaza%20War%202023%20-%20Tables%20of%20Results.pdf).
Also worth noting is that prior to the current conflagration, Gazan had a low level of trust in the Hamas government (https://www.arabbarometer.org/media-news/what-palestinians-really-think-of-hamas/) with about 70% of respondents answring "not a lot" (~25%) or "none at all" (~45%) in when answering the question about how much faith they had in Hamas.
Quote from: Jacob on November 23, 2023, 02:36:59 PMRe: polling - here's the complete data set of the poll discussed a little earlier in the thread (https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20Opinion%20Poll%20-%20Gaza%20War%202023%20-%20Tables%20of%20Results.pdf).
Also worth noting is that prior to the current conflagration, Gazan had a low level of trust in the Hamas government (https://www.arabbarometer.org/media-news/what-palestinians-really-think-of-hamas/) with about 70% of respondents answring "not a lot" (~25%) or "none at all" (~45%) in when answering the question about how much faith they had in Hamas.
If you are interested in knowing more, here is the interview with the person responsible for conducting that survey. She is the dean of the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs.
Here is the introduction blurb
QuoteThe day before Hamas's horrific attacks in Israel, the Arab Barometer, one of the leading polling operations in the Arab world, was finishing up a survey of public opinion in Gaza.
The result is a remarkable snapshot of how Gazans felt about Hamas and hoped the conflict with Israel would end. And what Gazans were thinking on Oct. 6 matters, now that they're all living with the brutal consequences of what Hamas did on Oct. 7.
So I invited on the show Amaney Jamal, the dean of the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs, and a co-founder and co-principal investigator of Arab Barometer, so she could walk me through the results.
And, it's a complicated picture. The people of Gaza, like any other population, have diverse beliefs. But one thing is clear: Hamas was not very popular.
As Jamal and her co-author write: "The Hamas-led government may be uninterested in peace, but it is empirically wrong for Israeli political leaders to accuse all Gazans of the same."
Here is the link
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/she-polled-gazans-on-oct-6-heres-what-she-found/id1548604447?i=1000633572018
Quote from: Jacob on November 23, 2023, 02:36:59 PMRe: polling - here's the complete data set of the poll discussed a little earlier in the thread (https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20Opinion%20Poll%20-%20Gaza%20War%202023%20-%20Tables%20of%20Results.pdf).
Also worth noting is that prior to the current conflagration, Gazan had a low level of trust in the Hamas government (https://www.arabbarometer.org/media-news/what-palestinians-really-think-of-hamas/) with about 70% of respondents answring "not a lot" (~25%) or "none at all" (~45%) in when answering the question about how much faith they had in Hamas.
So Hamas became a lot more popular with Gazans after it slaughtered Israeli babies? :hmm:
Quote from: Jacob on November 23, 2023, 02:36:59 PMRe: polling - here's the complete data set of the poll discussed a little earlier in the thread (https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20Opinion%20Poll%20-%20Gaza%20War%202023%20-%20Tables%20of%20Results.pdf).
Also worth noting is that prior to the current conflagration, Gazan had a low level of trust in the Hamas government (https://www.arabbarometer.org/media-news/what-palestinians-really-think-of-hamas/) with about 70% of respondents answring "not a lot" (~25%) or "none at all" (~45%) in when answering the question about how much faith they had in Hamas.
Opposition to Hamas doesn't necessarily mean willing to make peace with Israel.
You see this in Russia these days. There's a lot of opposition to Putin - on the grounds he isn't doing enough to defeat Ukraine.
Quote from: DGuller on November 23, 2023, 02:51:42 PMSo Hamas became a lot more popular with Gazans after it slaughtered Israeli babies? :hmm:
That's one interpretation. Another is that Hamas became more popular when they were the defending forces while Gaza is being attacked. Prseumably the government - i.e. Hamas - also organized whatever rescue of civilians hit by attacks and so forth. "Rallying around the flag" in times of crisis is pretty common behaviour, whatever the flag, whatever the crisis, and whatever the cause of the crisis.
Quote from: DGuller on November 23, 2023, 02:51:42 PMQuote from: Jacob on November 23, 2023, 02:36:59 PMRe: polling - here's the complete data set of the poll discussed a little earlier in the thread (https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20Opinion%20Poll%20-%20Gaza%20War%202023%20-%20Tables%20of%20Results.pdf).
Also worth noting is that prior to the current conflagration, Gazan had a low level of trust in the Hamas government (https://www.arabbarometer.org/media-news/what-palestinians-really-think-of-hamas/) with about 70% of respondents answring "not a lot" (~25%) or "none at all" (~45%) in when answering the question about how much faith they had in Hamas.
So Hamas became a lot more popular with Gazans after it slaughtered Israeli babies? :hmm:
Kind of what happens when you get bombed. No doubt the reaction also played into hamas' plans
Yes. I do think there's a definite support your side at war even if they're shit bags factor.
See the American support our troops hysteria post 9-11 for instance.
Quote from: Josquius on November 23, 2023, 03:07:40 PMYes. I do think there's a definite support your side at war even if they're shit bags factor.
See the American support our troops hysteria post 9-11 for instance.
Definitely true of Western supporters of Palestine. Less true of America post 9/11.
@Jacob: I read low trust in Hamas as them running a shitty government. Not so much the violence thing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2023, 03:17:16 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 23, 2023, 03:07:40 PMYes. I do think there's a definite support your side at war even if they're shit bags factor.
See the American support our troops hysteria post 9-11 for instance.
Definitely true of Western supporters of Palestine. Less true of America post 9/11.
I think it was very true after 9/11. Giuliani and Bush were very unpopular until the attacks. I don't think Bush gets a second term if 9/11 doesn't happen.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2023, 03:17:16 PM@Jacob: I read low trust in Hamas as them running a shitty government. Not so much the violence thing.
Yeah that's plausible. I'm not strongly beholden to any particular argument here (though some of the attendant articles clearly are), just sharing the data.
Still, it's an open (and political) question to what degree support for Hamas (and their actions) has increased due to the violence perpetrated against Israelis vs due to the violence perpetrated against Palestinians.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2023, 03:17:16 PM...Less true of America post 9/11.
Completely disagree. From my vantage point there was a massive rally around the flag effect in the US post 9/11.
Quote from: frunk on November 23, 2023, 03:26:40 PMI think it was very true after 9/11. Giuliani and Bush were very unpopular until the attacks. I don't think Bush gets a second term if 9/11 doesn't happen.
The statement I was reacting to was about shitbags and hysteria, not the unpopularity of politicians.
Quote from: Jacob on November 23, 2023, 03:27:14 PMStill, it's an open (and political) question to what degree support for Hamas (and their actions) has increased due to the violence perpetrated against Israelis vs due to the violence perpetrated against Palestinians.
What a bizarre coincidence that the survey was conducted on the exact same day as the Hamas attack.
So if we're trying to explain a change in attitudes in favor of Hamas, we can't count in the bombing of Gaza which hadn't happened yet. I don't know how much we can count in the Hamas attack itself, since it was ongoing at the time of the survey.
Quote from: Jacob on November 23, 2023, 03:05:09 PMQuote from: DGuller on November 23, 2023, 02:51:42 PMSo Hamas became a lot more popular with Gazans after it slaughtered Israeli babies? :hmm:
That's one interpretation. Another is that Hamas became more popular when they were the defending forces while Gaza is being attacked. Prseumably the government - i.e. Hamas - also organized whatever rescue of civilians hit by attacks and so forth. "Rallying around the flag" in times of crisis is pretty common behaviour, whatever the flag, whatever the crisis, and whatever the cause of the crisis.
I don't think rallying around the flag is a guaranteed phenomenon. It happens when the population considers the war just. The country being attacked pretty much always feels just, and on 9/11 US was definitely attacked. Whether the aggressor country rallies around the flag depends a lot on whether the population feels disdain for those being attacked, or whether it's brainwashed to the point that it would support any atrocity.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2023, 03:47:49 PMWhat a bizarre coincidence that the survey was conducted on the exact same day as the Hamas attack.
So if we're trying to explain a change in attitudes in favor of Hamas, we can't count in the bombing of Gaza which hadn't happened yet. I don't know how much we can count in the Hamas attack itself, since it was ongoing at the time of the survey.
I hadn't noticed the date. Yeah... that's interesting.
I'd expect that the date of the attack there's probably a whole bunch of fog of war and uncertainty about exactly what happened. But definitely the attitude wouldn't reflect the results of the Israeli counter attack, since it hadn't materialized yet.
Quote from: DGuller on November 23, 2023, 04:01:30 PMI don't think rallying around the flag is a guaranteed phenomenon. It happens when the population considers the war just. The country being attacked pretty much always feels just, and on 9/11 US was definitely attacked. Whether the aggressor country rallies around the flag depends a lot on whether the population feels disdain for those being attacked, or whether it's brainwashed to the point that it would support any atrocity.
Yeah, I meant rally around the flag as a response to Israel attacking Gaza - but as that hadn't happened yet, that's not relevant.
On the day of the attack I imagine it's a form of euphoria of a group that normally sees itself as powerless succeeded at making a strike against their enemy. I'm not certain how widely people were aware of the scale and nature of the atrocities perpetrated versus the more abstract idea of "a successful attack" - nor to what degree more higher awareness has to potentially change the result.
Quote from: DGuller on November 23, 2023, 04:01:30 PMI don't think rallying around the flag is a guaranteed phenomenon. It happens when the population considers the war just. The country being attacked pretty much always feels just, and on 9/11 US was definitely attacked. Whether the aggressor country rallies around the flag depends a lot on whether the population feels disdain for those being attacked, or whether it's brainwashed to the point that it would support any atrocity.
I have to note that Putin has benefitted from a "rally around the flag" effect after invading Ukraine.
Quote from: Barrister on November 23, 2023, 04:21:29 PMQuote from: DGuller on November 23, 2023, 04:01:30 PMI don't think rallying around the flag is a guaranteed phenomenon. It happens when the population considers the war just. The country being attacked pretty much always feels just, and on 9/11 US was definitely attacked. Whether the aggressor country rallies around the flag depends a lot on whether the population feels disdain for those being attacked, or whether it's brainwashed to the point that it would support any atrocity.
I have to note that Putin has benefitted from a "rally around the flag" effect after invading Ukraine.
Hence my last sentence.
Quote from: Tamas on November 23, 2023, 04:22:19 AMI think you guys dismissing those Palestinian polls (except for my own caveat of try living in that part of the world and give an honest answer when somebody cold-calls you) are in contradiction with your other stance on Israel putting Palestinians into a great plight.
If the latter is true then why would it be surprising that they have extreme views about Israel?
Look at the polls on the Israeli side too. You see similar beliefs about peace. You see a majority of Israelis who believe that there should be one state where Palestinians have much less rights than than the Jewish population, including no right to vote.
Combine this kind of attitude with everything that is happening.
I've been rereading about the 1993-1995 peace process and the attitude on both sides. Israeli and Arabs, Jewish and Muslims dancing and chanting in the streets. Lots of hope for peace. Then it crashed. Rabin backed off from the peace process because of opposition on his own side and he later got killed for giving too much.
Just a reminder about the things that were said of him:
In the weeks before the assassination, Netanyahu, then head of the opposition, and other senior Likud members attended a right-wing political rally in Jerusalem where protesters branded Rabin a "traitor," "murderer," and "Nazi" for signing a peace agreement with the Palestinians earlier that year. "We got to his car, and we'll get to him, too," - Itamar Ben Gvir (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itamar_Ben-Gvir), when talking of Yitzhak Rabin, before his assassination.
Arafat had taken a lot of flak for remaining vague on his full commitment to peace toward Israel for fear of assassination by his own camp, and this was erected has a definitive proof that Palestinians rejected peace. I'm just wondering what the event on the Israeli side are supposed to prove? That Israelis are peace lovers, victims of warmongering Palestinians? Genocidals beasts that won't rest until all Palestinians are dead? Or more like everywhere else in the world (shocker), there could be a more nuance view of both societies?
If you want to read more about polls on both sides of the fence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution
Yeah I think in both Israel and Palestine support for a two state solution peaked in the 90s/early 00s and has since fallen to new lows in recent years. I think it's an incredibly sad example of the political possibilities, from the leaders, narrowing the horizons of their people. It's really sad.
"I don't want to hear about this nonsense again. If you bother me with these things again, you will stand trial." (https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-774862)
QuoteIDF elite intel officer warned about Hamas attacks, ignored - report
This is the response they received from him: "I don't want to hear about this nonsense again. If you bother me with these things again, you will stand trial."
A junior Israeli officer in the elite 8200 intelligence unit warned over Hamas's plan of a mass infiltration event and was ignored by her commanders, N12 reported on Thursday evening.
The officer claims to have warned for the past 12 months about a scenario that involves a mass intrusion event by Hamas, foreshadowing what occurred on October 7.
She turned to her commanders, but they did nothing. "You are imagining it," her commanders were quoted by N12 as telling her.
Last week, Channel 12's Weekend News program published new testimonies of female observers who served near the Gaza border.
In the testimonies of the observers, they tell how for months they warned repeatedly about changes they see in the field, which require special attention and raising red flags.
(https://images.jpost.com/image/upload/f_auto,fl_lossy/c_fill,g_faces:center,h_537,w_822/564365)
According to them, they told their commanders that there were training sessions, anomalies, and preparations near the border.
Among other things, they described how more and more people who had never visited this area suddenly come to it, how farmers who used to come day after day to work the fields suddenly don't come to the place and are replaced by others, and above all they recognize another feature, one that rang all the bells.
Those female observers felt that they were not being listened to and that what they were seeing was not being counted.
There were those who decided to alert one of the senior commanders in the sector, and this is the response they received from him: "I don't want to hear about this nonsense again. If you bother me with these things again, you will stand trial."
The IDF spokesman's response to the case: "These days, the IDF is working and fighting the murderous terrorist organization Hamas in the Gaza Strip. All commanders and soldiers are focused on this mission only, to complete the goals of the war. After the end of the war, a detailed and in-depth investigation will be conducted on the matter to clarify the details to the end."
I'm wondering if there hasn't been a politicization of the army and the intelligence agencies under such a long time of the Netanyahy government. 16 years or near continuous government by right wing nuts, with religious fanatics having their say must have left marks. Female officers not being taken seriously about credible threats of Hamas infiltration would be a signe of their religious contempt for women. Or is it simply that this government had its head so far up its ass about Hamas being an asset that no one anywhere wanted to hear anything about the terrorists being a real threat anymore, including the morons put in charge to watch over them?
Fucking incompetence at all level.
Quote from: DGuller on November 23, 2023, 02:51:42 PMQuote from: Jacob on November 23, 2023, 02:36:59 PMRe: polling - here's the complete data set of the poll discussed a little earlier in the thread (https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20Opinion%20Poll%20-%20Gaza%20War%202023%20-%20Tables%20of%20Results.pdf).
Also worth noting is that prior to the current conflagration, Gazan had a low level of trust in the Hamas government (https://www.arabbarometer.org/media-news/what-palestinians-really-think-of-hamas/) with about 70% of respondents answring "not a lot" (~25%) or "none at all" (~45%) in when answering the question about how much faith they had in Hamas.
So Hamas became a lot more popular with Gazans after it slaughtered Israeli babies? :hmm:
Again:
Hamas denies it killed children in fight with Israel (https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/hamas-denies-it-killed-children-in-fight-with-israel/3015680)
I think many Palestinians, even among those who dislike them or have low confidence in them, are inclined to believe this kind of statements over what Israel and western medias will say. No matter the amount of evidence we show them, it's likely all lies designed to justify Israel's actions.
Quote from: HVC on November 23, 2023, 03:06:45 PMQuote from: DGuller on November 23, 2023, 02:51:42 PMQuote from: Jacob on November 23, 2023, 02:36:59 PMRe: polling - here's the complete data set of the poll discussed a little earlier in the thread (https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20Opinion%20Poll%20-%20Gaza%20War%202023%20-%20Tables%20of%20Results.pdf).
Also worth noting is that prior to the current conflagration, Gazan had a low level of trust in the Hamas government (https://www.arabbarometer.org/media-news/what-palestinians-really-think-of-hamas/) with about 70% of respondents answring "not a lot" (~25%) or "none at all" (~45%) in when answering the question about how much faith they had in Hamas.
So Hamas became a lot more popular with Gazans after it slaughtered Israeli babies? :hmm:
Kind of what happens when you get bombed. No doubt the reaction also played into hamas' plans
If on the other hand the israelis led themselves be slaughtered Hamas would also become more popular...
Quote from: HVC on November 23, 2023, 03:06:45 PMQuote from: DGuller on November 23, 2023, 02:51:42 PMQuote from: Jacob on November 23, 2023, 02:36:59 PMRe: polling - here's the complete data set of the poll discussed a little earlier in the thread (https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20Opinion%20Poll%20-%20Gaza%20War%202023%20-%20Tables%20of%20Results.pdf).
Also worth noting is that prior to the current conflagration, Gazan had a low level of trust in the Hamas government (https://www.arabbarometer.org/media-news/what-palestinians-really-think-of-hamas/) with about 70% of respondents answring "not a lot" (~25%) or "none at all" (~45%) in when answering the question about how much faith they had in Hamas.
So Hamas became a lot more popular with Gazans after it slaughtered Israeli babies? :hmm:
Kind of what happens when you get bombed. No doubt the reaction also played into hamas' plans
Yes. It's interesting how much this talk has been swept away. But when the attacks first happened there was a lot of talk about what the hell Hamas were thinking and what they hoped to accomplish.
The best theory I read was that they saw Israel creeping towards reproachment with their neighbours and a possible final deal inching closer...and they had to make sure it was them holding a dominant position over Palestinians as this came.
Quote from: Josquius on November 23, 2023, 03:07:40 PMYes. I do think there's a definite support your side at war even if they're shit bags factor.
See the American support our troops hysteria post 9-11 for instance.
And more to the point the unity government in Israel propping up Bibi.
Israeli spokesdude on BBC via NPR: 1 more day of cease fire for each 10 hostages released.
"Destruction of terrorist infrastructure" is new negotiating position. Different than destruction of Hamas.
Israel's Communications Minister Threatens Haaretz, Suggests Penalizing Its Gaza War Coverage (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-23/ty-article/israels-communications-minister-threatens-haaretz-suggests-penalizing-its-war-coverage/0000018b-fd0c-de73-a9bb-ffefb9f10000)
QuoteIsrael's Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi submitted a proposal to take action against Haaretz by ending the publication of government notices in Haaretz. Karhi, a member of Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu's Likud party, said the newspaper was "sabotaging Israel in wartime" and was an "inflammatory mouthpiece for Israel's enemies."
The proposal, which was submitted without being vetted by the ministry's legal adviser, would immediately halt any payments to Haaretz from any state entity within his purview.
[...]
I'm getting serious Russia vibes here. :hmm:
You should. Netanyahu and his thugs want an Putin/Orban type state. They have been trying to destroy the judiciary and free press for awhile.
There was a point raised on a podcast and I am wondering if you better informed peeps agree with it. Namely, that the relative silence of the Arab streets is very noticeable. I think they may have a point. Apart from the very early days (and even then only mostly by Palestinians elsewhere), it seems like we have not had the usual pictures of outraged protests across the Arab world, let alone the larger Muslim world - except for some protests in Turkey I think, and of course the London ones which seem to be by far the largest worldwide.
Has Muslim exhaustion re. Palestine set in? I think it has become obvious the leaders of Arab countries would rather strike deals with Israel, and it seems they are facing less popular pressure against this than in previous decades.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 25, 2023, 03:19:19 AM"Destruction of terrorist infrastructure" is new negotiating position. Different than destruction of Hamas.
That's a very elastic concept.
Most obvious inference is that the government has no plan and is improvising.
Some hostages have been freed yesterday and today.
Hamas complaining Israel is not appreciative enough of their gesture. I supposed Bibi could have sent a personalized thank you note along the aid trucks...
I hope the truce last long enough for these hostages to be rescued.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 25, 2023, 05:23:05 PMThat's a very elastic concept.
Most obvious inference is that the government has no plan and is improvising.
I think it's significant. Blow up all the tunnels, confiscate all the weapons, get all the hostages out, go home and declare victory. Very different than killing or capturing every member of Hamas.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 25, 2023, 06:57:20 PMVery different than killing or capturing every member of Hamas.
Unless the government of Israel has a membership list with full names and pictures, it's an unrealistic objective to achieve.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 25, 2023, 05:23:05 PMThat's a very elastic concept.
Most obvious inference is that the government has no plan and is improvising.
Sisi and the US are publicly rejecting the idea of population transfer or "forced expulsion" of the population of Gaza, or redrawing its borders - again. I think by my count that's the third or fourth time they've made public statements on this.
My suspicion is that's what the government is pushing for and the improvisation is trying to find an alternative.
Expulsion never made sense. Where would they go?
Egypt.
There was reporting at the start of the war about some Arab states doing a deal of massive cash transfers to help Egypt in its financial crisis in exchange for taking Palestinians from Gaza. US and Egypt have been consistently and repeatedly issuing statements that it's not acceptable/isn't an option.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 25, 2023, 09:15:47 PMExpulsion never made sense. Where would they go?
Israel has been trying to expel them since the beginning. For now, they are content on concentrating them in the south and keeping the north demilitarized.
But there has been repeated calls to move the Palestinians anywhere but in Gaza. Egypt, Canada, US, Jordan, any occidental country that would issue them refugee status since they are already refugees.
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-773163
I have a hard time imagining anyone would welcome a sizable group of people that includes those we saw cheering as decapitated bodies were paraded through the streets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSaxN0xg5Aw
3 Palestinian students shot in VT.
Well that's bad :(
Another Jewish school and a Jewish community center have been firebombed in Montreal yesterday. <sigh>
I wonder why it's so difficult to catch these perpetrators. There has to be cameras almost everywhere in Montreal.
No, cameras are not ubiquitous.
And even if they were...cameras are terrible about identifying people in masks/hoodies...which I imagine make up most of the population of firebombers and Canadians at this time of year.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2023, 05:00:44 PMI posted a survey. It also gave Hamas support at about 75% in Palestine.
About the same level as on TikTok. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 27, 2023, 08:19:46 PMAnd even if they were...cameras are terrible about identifying people in masks/hoodies...which I imagine make up most of the population of firebombers and Canadians at this time of year.
Vans, trucks, cars, license plates. I doubt they used public transit or simply walked with a mask on in the streets of Montreal.
Quote from: viper37 on November 27, 2023, 01:04:33 PMAnother Jewish school and a Jewish community center have been firebombed in Montreal yesterday. <sigh>
I wonder why it's so difficult to catch these perpetrators. There has to be cameras almost everywhere in Montreal.
They don't want to catch them. Jews being murdered by Muslims isn't a crime according to lefties up North. Just an oppressed people fighting against the evil Imperialist.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 27, 2023, 09:27:32 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 27, 2023, 01:04:33 PMAnother Jewish school and a Jewish community center have been firebombed in Montreal yesterday. <sigh>
I wonder why it's so difficult to catch these perpetrators. There has to be cameras almost everywhere in Montreal.
They don't want to catch them. Jews being murdered by Muslims isn't a crime according to lefties up North. Just an oppressed people fighting against the evil Imperialist.
3 Palestinians students were just shot in Vermont. I don't think the righties down South can afford to give any lessons on crime tolerance.
Quote from: viper37 on November 27, 2023, 10:15:12 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 27, 2023, 09:27:32 PMQuote from: viper37 on November 27, 2023, 01:04:33 PMAnother Jewish school and a Jewish community center have been firebombed in Montreal yesterday. <sigh>
I wonder why it's so difficult to catch these perpetrators. There has to be cameras almost everywhere in Montreal.
They don't want to catch them. Jews being murdered by Muslims isn't a crime according to lefties up North. Just an oppressed people fighting against the evil Imperialist.
3 Palestinians students were just shot in Vermont. I don't think the righties down South can afford to give any lessons on crime tolerance.
Vermont is a far left state, for one--and a suspect is already in custody. In America we don't simply ignore crimes because we don't like the religion of the victims, or celebrate murder because we dislike the religion of the victims. In Canada and much of Europe I can't say the same.
:lmfao:
Alright, OvB. It's time for you to go back to the Hitler Youth forums of yore.
Quote from: Josquius on November 28, 2023, 04:16:07 AM:lmfao:
Laugh on--like the UK isn't riddled with unprecedented antisemitic incidents as we speak, or like you don't have pro-genocide protests going on regularly there now.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 27, 2023, 09:10:39 PMQuote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2023, 05:00:44 PMI posted a survey. It also gave Hamas support at about 75% in Palestine.
About the same level as on TikTok. :rolleyes:
:yeahright:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 28, 2023, 09:44:22 AMQuote from: Josquius on November 28, 2023, 04:16:07 AM:lmfao:
Laugh on--like the UK isn't riddled with unprecedented antisemitic incidents as we speak, or like you don't have pro-genocide protests going on regularly there now.
Oh you're totally right. Can't move for all the anti-Semitic incidents and pro genocide protests breaking out all over the place. These days they're just as much a fundamental part of life as football or roast beef or beloved children's entertainers of the past being convicted of sexual offenses.
You were arguing against Anti-Semitism in the Labor party and saying it was much worse in the Tories and we know how bad it was in labor...
Quote from: Razgovory on November 28, 2023, 01:02:14 PMYou were arguing against Anti-Semitism in the Labor party and saying it was much worse in the Tories and we know how bad it was in labor...
I don't recall ever saying that. Perhaps more that so much was being made of the anti semitism issues in labour with zero mention of the much worse racism of the tories?
From what I gather of the image presented abroad and that you're saying this in response to a claim anti semitic crime is rampant and there are massed protests for genocide.... I don't think you do know that no
British officials are the ones who have said there have been a "record number" of antisemitic incidents, that isn't something we just made up.
OvB I just want to go on the record here as saying that I often find your sober analysis fairly compelling, but that your racist trolling is pretty tedious.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 28, 2023, 03:24:10 PMBritish officials are the ones who have said there have been a "record number" of antisemitic incidents, that isn't something we just made up.
Yes. Anti-Semitic crime is up 1350% in London.
This meaning 218 vs 15.
Percentages are popular with those looking to mislead. Record numbers of a uncommon crime don't mean its suddenly rampant.
And pro genocide marches just didn't happen at all.
Quote from: Josquius on November 28, 2023, 04:14:34 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 28, 2023, 03:24:10 PMBritish officials are the ones who have said there have been a "record number" of antisemitic incidents, that isn't something we just made up.
Yes. Anti-Semitic crime is up 1350% in London.
This meaning 218 vs 15.
Percentages are popular with those looking to mislead. Record numbers of a uncommon crime don't mean its suddenly rampant.
And pro genocide marches just didn't happen at all.
What number of hate crimes means it is a problem? Jews are what? 1.5% of London?
Quote from: Valmy on November 28, 2023, 10:43:17 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 28, 2023, 04:14:34 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 28, 2023, 03:24:10 PMBritish officials are the ones who have said there have been a "record number" of antisemitic incidents, that isn't something we just made up.
Yes. Anti-Semitic crime is up 1350% in London.
This meaning 218 vs 15.
Percentages are popular with those looking to mislead. Record numbers of a uncommon crime don't mean its suddenly rampant.
And pro genocide marches just didn't happen at all.
What number of hate crimes means it is a problem? Jews are what? 1.5% of London?
1.
However something being a problem (in London) isn't the same as Europe being dominated by that problem.
Quote from: Jacob on November 28, 2023, 03:38:31 PMOvB I just want to go on the record here as saying that I often find your sober analysis fairly compelling, but that your racist trolling is pretty tedious.
Agreed. It's a real shame.
Quote from: Gups on November 29, 2023, 05:16:26 AMQuote from: Jacob on November 28, 2023, 03:38:31 PMOvB I just want to go on the record here as saying that I often find your sober analysis fairly compelling, but that your racist trolling is pretty tedious.
Agreed. It's a real shame.
Thirded.
I understand it's an opinion piece but why is it ok to throw around accusation of genocide nilly-willy in a major newspaper, and to a lesser extent calling it war "on" Gaza?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/29/war-gaza-egyptians-palestine-israel-hamas-protest-marches
Is this Owen Jones again? Refuse the click or give him any attention.
Quote from: Gups on November 29, 2023, 08:59:22 AMIs this Owen Jones again? Refuse the click or give him any attention.
No it's some Egyptian fellow. Owen Jones had a different Israel-bashing article earlier this morning. Speaking of which, I find it revealing of the sectarian aspects that apart from Owen Jones, pretty much all "pro-Palestinian" articles (of which there's been many, many, many) have been from Muslim authors (as far as my name-reading can tell).
Quote from: Tamas on November 29, 2023, 08:47:57 AMI understand it's an opinion piece but why is it ok to throw around accusation of genocide nilly-willy in a major newspaper, and to a lesser extent calling it war "on" Gaza?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/29/war-gaza-egyptians-palestine-israel-hamas-protest-marches
meh, in the meantime there's an actual genocide going on in Sudan. Those people aren't credible in other words.
Meanwhile, more apartheidish oppressors fall thanks to their owm wicked methods:
QuoteHamas says youngest hostage, 10-month-old Kfir Bibas, has been killed along with two family members
The armed wing of Hamas said on Wednesday that 10-month-old Kfir Bibas, his four-year-old brother and their mother, who were being held hostage, were killed during the Israeli bombardment of the Gaza Strip.
"Killed while trying to escape"
Quote from: Tamas on November 29, 2023, 05:37:49 AMQuote from: Gups on November 29, 2023, 05:16:26 AMQuote from: Jacob on November 28, 2023, 03:38:31 PMOvB I just want to go on the record here as saying that I often find your sober analysis fairly compelling, but that your racist trolling is pretty tedious.
Agreed. It's a real shame.
Thirded.
You guys are smoking crack if you think it's "racist trolling" to point out the well documented, well reported issues
right now with a growth of (primarily Muslim-fueled) antisemitism in Canada and Europe.
That's not the same thing than accusing our governments and local authorities of having an anti-semite agenda.
Which you did.
Interesting discussion on newsnight yesterday of how this whole situation is being presented as Hamas vs Israel when really it's Hamas at the head of a dozen different armed groups.
I do wonder whether the truth will ever come out of which behaved best and worst in the initial attacks - if indeed things are even split that way.
More pertinently it makes the current negotiations extra complex. The worse than Hamas groups won't be so keen on giving up their hostages.
Which group raped and murdered best and worst? :huh:
Quote from: Iormlund on November 29, 2023, 05:38:28 PMWhich group raped and murdered best and worst? :huh:
They could have an awards show; it'll be bigger than the Oscars. Susan Sarandon could MC, it looks like she'll be available for some time now.
I did read something early on (I think linked here) about some Palestinian dudes saying to an Israeli mother "we don't kill babies, we are from [random Islamist name]."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2023, 06:52:53 PMI did read something early on (I think linked here) about some Palestinian dudes saying to an Israeli mother "we don't kill babies, we are from [random Islamist name]."
I hope what that Palestinian dude said was true.
The fact that there were multiple groups involved in the attack, operating under the Hamas umbrella is new to me. I would be pleased to learn that some (or even most) of them did not subscribe to principles that endorsed murdering infants and children.
I would be even more pleased to see Hamas take action against baby-killers within their own ranks.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2023, 06:52:53 PMI did read something early on (I think linked here) about some Palestinian dudes saying to an Israeli mother "we don't kill babies, we are from [random Islamist name]."
Yeah, there was a huge array of behaviours amongst different attackers ranging from the "we don't just murder. We want to cause as much suffering as possible" through to those who seem to have behaved quite like decent professional soldiers and didn't harm civilians.
I recall reading something a while ago that Hamas' leadership was shocked at quite how fucked up some of the attackers had been- does make me wonder now whether this was referring to the guys they had radicalised themselves or other groups.
Here's an article on that story about the varied groups.
BBC News - How Hamas built a force to attack Israel on 7 October
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67480680
Quote from: Jacob on November 29, 2023, 06:57:12 PMI would be even more pleased to see Hamas take action against baby-killers within their own ranks.
But not grannies? Or teens? Or pregnant mothers?
You end up in a weird place when you start carving out special exceptions for slaughtering civilians.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2023, 07:40:46 PMBut not grannies? Or teens? Or pregnant mothers?
You're reading quiet a lot more into my statement there than I intended.
Presumably if the mother of the baby survived to report the guy saying "we are [group], we don't kill babies" she wasn't killed either, suggesting that that group in particular didn't have a police of murdering even some categories of adults.
QuoteYou end up in a weird place when you start carving out special exceptions for slaughtering civilians.
For sure.
Actually to elaborate...
As I understand it, Russian attackers in Ukraine murdered and raped Ukrainian civilians with what seemed to be impunity (and possible tacit encouragement). However, when that one psycho shared a video of him raping an infant, I believe the Russian authorities actually took action against him. To me, that indicated that Russia still has an established (if obviously low) bar to the kind of depravity they'll accept.
When it comes to the Hamas attack, my impression at first was that Hamas as a whole endorsed the murder and torture of even babies and children as a positive act in the war they are fighting. That puts the bar for depravity significantly lower than even Russia.
If - as it now seems - the willingness to hurt infants and children was limited to small groups within Hamas as opposed to the organization as a whole, that lifts the very low bar just a tiny bit higher.
Should Hamas as an organization crack down on those who perpetrated the worst atrocities - and yeah, on refelction I do somehow thing that murdering children is worse than murdering adults though I'm not really interested in creating a graduated scale for a multifaceted set of possible victims - than that raises the bar a bit further to the (still very low) bar set by Russia. As a positive, it may also discourage elements of Hamas or their successors from the very worst excesses next time (if there is a next time, but it seems likely that this conflict isn't going to be fully resolved this time around).
Things change, I guess. Hamas leader, the one who lives in exile in Qatar, went to Iran and got told that he wasn't going to get any more help nor a wider war with that stunt. They had to reasses their position since that moment.
I am glad Hamas propaganda is starting to work on some. Hey we are decent guys, this whole jew killing business just spilled over a bit, honest, just a few rotten apples going over their allocated quota of civilian murders while sent out on a slaving raid.
Quote from: Josquius on November 29, 2023, 07:15:04 PMI recall reading something a while ago that Hamas' leadership was shocked at quite how fucked up some of the attackers had been- does make me wonder now whether this was referring to the guys they had radicalised themselves or other groups.
That would explain a bit (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2023/11/02/hamas-captagon-drug-use-idf-claim/71288873007/)
I am not surprised of how fucked up the attack was given the drugs.
Radicalization + drugs don't mix well together.
Quote from: Tamas on November 29, 2023, 09:11:29 PMI am glad Hamas propaganda is starting to work on some. Hey we are decent guys, this whole jew killing business just spilled over a bit, honest, just a few rotten apples going over their allocated quota of civilian murders while sent out on a slaving raid.
Do you think Admiral Yi is the one spreading Hamas propaganda, or do you think it's the Jewish woman he's quoting who presumably was recently released as a hostage?
It's funny (not in a ha-ha way) how Overton window works in contexts other than politics. Hamas normalized their behavior to the point where a terrorist can say "we're not savages, we'll smother the baby gently, but no way are we going to behead it", and you have to stop and catch yourself from feeling warm and fuzzy at the display of such humanity.
Not all German units were as bad as the worst SS units? :o
Quote from: Jacob on November 29, 2023, 10:42:12 PMQuote from: Tamas on November 29, 2023, 09:11:29 PMI am glad Hamas propaganda is starting to work on some. Hey we are decent guys, this whole jew killing business just spilled over a bit, honest, just a few rotten apples going over their allocated quota of civilian murders while sent out on a slaving raid.
Do you think Admiral Yi is the one spreading Hamas propaganda, or do you think it's the Jewish woman he's quoting who presumably was recently released as a hostage?
I meant Josq and not so much spreading but falling for it.
For example: the 10-month old baby, his 4 years old brother and the rest of their family - am I to understand they were kidnapped by the good terrorists? After all they were not murdered on the spot. Or the good terrorists are the ones only kidnapping consent-age civilians, and there's a group of neutral terrorists who kidnap infants?
Additionally, one of the Thai hostages told the press they had barely anything given to eat, they had one shower the whole of 7 weeks, and that he witnessed the israeli hostages being beaten with electric cords. I was wondering where these actions fall on the "good guys Hamas" and "bad guys not Hamas just working under Hamas command" scale.
This shows the problem of the "perfect Israel can do no wrong and the Palestinians are evil monsters" view that there's such a push to enforce. There can be no discussion of Hamas. They're just bad. Comic book villains who do bad for the sake of being bad. Any attempt to discuss is falling for their propaganda.
Nobody supports Hamas here. Its been nearly 2 months now, that should be clear. It would be a much easier (and more 'fun'?) discussion if someone did want to make excuses for Hamas, but nobody is doing that.
The evidence is pretty good that Hamas was merely the leading force over a coalition that was behind the attack. There being more than 2 players at work does look pretty certain to make ending the conflict more difficult. Though Hamas did make propaganda about this fact its not something we've seen much of in the west and there is no harm in discussing it as it is relevant to the current situation.
Nobody thinks there are 'good' terrorists.
I know you meant to highlight the complex nature of Palestinian terrorist power organisations but focus on this IS useful for Hamas to whitewash themselves and their own responsibility, and it is working.
And I do refuse your equation between the state of Israel and Hamas. With all the faults of the government of the former, they are not the same and when using Hamas as a base of comparison Israel is "perfect" in your context.
For example, the 10 months old kid and his brother who were kidnapped and allegedly died in an IDF air raid. I am well aware that a lot more Palestinian children must have died in this war. However to me there IS a crucial distinction of them being collateral damage in a response to cruel terrorism (how necessary a collateral damage is up for debate obviously), and the Israeli kids' deaths because the latter were not some bystanders accidentally in the way of a larger operation. They were the targets of the Palestinian operation. When kidnapped, they were not poor little sods happening to be in/near the building the real target shared with them. Palestinians went there and pointed guns directly at the kids and their parents and in a very personal way kidnapped them. And apparently nobody with a strong enough voice on the Palestinian side thought that maybe holding a 10 month baby hostage was a bit strong. Incidentally also nobody organised a 100k protest in London to say that maybe the kidnap of 10 months olds should be considered off limits even if the 10 months old is a citizen of a so called apartheid state.
We have a minor ongoing scandal here in Sweden where a Social Democrat parliamentarian of Palestine descent is an active Hamas supporter. He's been a speaker at Hamas conferences and has said a lot of dubious stuff, but not anything really direct.
He refuses to condemn Hamas and refuses to condemn the terrorist attack.
At this point the expectation is huge scandal and him being kicked out of the party. Oh no, instead our former prime minister, in a weird Freudian slip, calls him Jamal Hamas in Parliament and tells a lie that his entire family of 35 people have been killed by Israelis. She refuses to condemn his behaviour and claims he is the biggest Hamas opponent in the party, but she cannot name a single thing he has done to combat Hamas.
Why? I haven't seen it proved but the theory is that up to a million Social Democrat voters are muslims and the party fears losing that vote of they go down hard on Hamas supporters.
QuoteWhy? I haven't seen it proved but the theory is that up to a million Social Democrat voters are muslims and the party fears losing that vote of they go down hard on Hamas supporters.
The way I look at this and I know that's not how politicians are going to look at it is, this need fighting.
There are two possible scenarios: either the decisive number of Muslims of the country are NOT pan-Muslims first and citizens of their country second in which case staying firmly anti-Hamas/anti-Islamist is a non-issue politically, or they ARE pan-Muslims first in which case a firm stance against that must be taken while there's the option to do so.
Josq, even if Hamas troops had not personally decapitated or burned little kids it wouldn't make a difference.
Your position is like saying that the IDF holds no responsibility for settlers killing Arabs in the West Bank while they are providing security.
It was a Hamas raid, and they are to be held accountable for whatever took place during the operation.
In any case, we have footage of Hamas commandos storming the rave. You know, the one where they killed a lot of kids and (for example) decapitated and paraded Shania Louk. So no. They are definitely not off the hook.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 30, 2023, 07:20:27 AMJosq, even if Hamas troops had not personally decapitated or burned little kids it wouldn't make a difference.
Your position is like saying that the IDF holds no responsibility for settlers killing Arabs in the West Bank while they are providing security.
It was a Hamas raid, and they are to be held accountable for whatever took place during the operation.
In any case, we have footage of Hamas commandos storming the rave. You know, the one where they killed a lot of kids and (for example) decapitated and paraded Shania Louk. So no. They are definitely not off the hook.
Why do you think Hamas should be off the hook?
Quote from: Tamas on November 30, 2023, 06:46:09 AMQuoteWhy? I haven't seen it proved but the theory is that up to a million Social Democrat voters are muslims and the party fears losing that vote of they go down hard on Hamas supporters.
The way I look at this and I know that's not how politicians are going to look at it is, this need fighting.
There are two possible scenarios: either the decisive number of Muslims of the country are NOT pan-Muslims first and citizens of their country second in which case staying firmly anti-Hamas/anti-Islamist is a non-issue politically, or they ARE pan-Muslims first in which case a firm stance against that must be taken while there's the option to do so.
Yes, lately the worker vote has moved from the Social Democrats to the Sweden Democrats. Native Swedes (and other immigrants), in general, do not support mass immigration from MENA countries. But they are not, in general, racists.
There's a window here for the Social Democrats to come down hard on muslim extremism and get the native vote back, but they aren't doing it so I guess they have data showing otherwise.
A Social Democrat run city a while ago got infiltrated (by the criminals joining the party and kicking out the normal politicians) by criminal gangs and more or less taken over by them, so this is a huge and growing problem for them.
Hamas has taken responsibility for the bus stop attack in Jerusalem. I guess joke is on the OMG apartheid occupiers for not including Jerusalem in the cease fire deal.
Quote from: Josquius on November 30, 2023, 07:28:42 AMQuote from: Iormlund on November 30, 2023, 07:20:27 AMJosq, even if Hamas troops had not personally decapitated or burned little kids it wouldn't make a difference.
Your position is like saying that the IDF holds no responsibility for settlers killing Arabs in the West Bank while they are providing security.
It was a Hamas raid, and they are to be held accountable for whatever took place during the operation.
In any case, we have footage of Hamas commandos storming the rave. You know, the one where they killed a lot of kids and (for example) decapitated and paraded Shania Louk. So no. They are definitely not off the hook.
Why do you think Hamas should be off the hook?
I think you missed him saying "not"
Quote from: Threviel on November 30, 2023, 06:29:47 AMWe have a minor ongoing scandal here in Sweden where a Social Democrat parliamentarian of Palestine descent is an active Hamas supporter. He's been a speaker at Hamas conferences and has said a lot of dubious stuff, but not anything really direct.
He refuses to condemn Hamas and refuses to condemn the terrorist attack.
At this point the expectation is huge scandal and him being kicked out of the party. Oh no, instead our former prime minister, in a weird Freudian slip, calls him Jamal Hamas in Parliament and tells a lie that his entire family of 35 people have been killed by Israelis. She refuses to condemn his behaviour and claims he is the biggest Hamas opponent in the party, but she cannot name a single thing he has done to combat Hamas.
Why? I haven't seen it proved but the theory is that up to a million Social Democrat voters are muslims and the party fears losing that vote of they go down hard on Hamas supporters.
Sweden isn't the UK and all that. But should be noted "Lefties afraid of upsetting muslim voters that they rely on" is a common dog whistle from the far right in the UK.
Quickly checking up I get total numbers of Muslims in Sweden as between 200,000 and 800,000 so not too different in terms of total percentage to here.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 30, 2023, 08:29:24 AMQuote from: Josquius on November 30, 2023, 07:28:42 AMQuote from: Iormlund on November 30, 2023, 07:20:27 AMJosq, even if Hamas troops had not personally decapitated or burned little kids it wouldn't make a difference.
Your position is like saying that the IDF holds no responsibility for settlers killing Arabs in the West Bank while they are providing security.
It was a Hamas raid, and they are to be held accountable for whatever took place during the operation.
In any case, we have footage of Hamas commandos storming the rave. You know, the one where they killed a lot of kids and (for example) decapitated and paraded Shania Louk. So no. They are definitely not off the hook.
Why do you think Hamas should be off the hook?
I think you missed him saying "not"
He raised the topic of Hamas being let off the hook which implies he sees there is an argument in favour of this too. It was a strangely worded post.
It was the impression I got from reading your posts: "behaved best" "worse than Hamas" "Hamas leadership shock" ...
I guess from your reaction that was not the intended meaning.
Quote from: Threviel on November 30, 2023, 06:29:47 AMWe have a minor ongoing scandal here in Sweden where a Social Democrat parliamentarian of Palestine descent is an active Hamas supporter. He's been a speaker at Hamas conferences and has said a lot of dubious stuff, but not anything really direct.
Good thing you're the one who posted this and not me, as apparently I am a "bigoted troll" when I say things like this.
It is clear that Hamas committed horrible atrocities, and there is no letting them off the hook for what they did. Personally, though, I think it's important to understand why and how and to what extent Hamas committed the worst excesses that they did.
Were they planned as high level operational objectives? Were they planned by sub-groups of Hamas? Or were they the acts of individual depravity? That matters because if they were planned by sub-groups, for example, I think it'd be appropriate to identify those groups and target them with extreme prejudice.
By the same token if the atrocities were planned or endorsed by people at a leadership level, or conversely if they were in fact shocked by them, that could be an indication of how the future of the conflict shapes up (because I don't believe it's going to be over in the next few months). Can we expect to see such atrocities as a new normal, or is it possible that Hamas (if they survive, or their successors if they do not) will attempt to prevent such atrocities in the future?
Iran's reaction - for example - seems to indicate that they are not interested in supporting such excess. This does not excuse any of the terrorism the Mullah regime has supported, but I think it is nonetheless worth noting.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 30, 2023, 11:08:36 AMQuote from: Threviel on November 30, 2023, 06:29:47 AMWe have a minor ongoing scandal here in Sweden where a Social Democrat parliamentarian of Palestine descent is an active Hamas supporter. He's been a speaker at Hamas conferences and has said a lot of dubious stuff, but not anything really direct.
Good thing you're the one who posted this and not me, as apparently I am a "bigoted troll" when I say things like this.
You're a bigoted troll when you say things like "Muslims are pure evil" and Palestenians are "lower tier humans". poster.
Quote from: Gups on November 30, 2023, 11:42:23 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 30, 2023, 11:08:36 AMQuote from: Threviel on November 30, 2023, 06:29:47 AMWe have a minor ongoing scandal here in Sweden where a Social Democrat parliamentarian of Palestine descent is an active Hamas supporter. He's been a speaker at Hamas conferences and has said a lot of dubious stuff, but not anything really direct.
Good thing you're the one who posted this and not me, as apparently I am a "bigoted troll" when I say things like this.
You're a bigoted troll when you say things like "Muslims are pure evil" and Palestenians are "lower tier humans". poster.
Sure, when I say those things I am being a bigoted troll. But that isn't what spurred that comment--what spurred it was me pointing out rampant and unrestrained antisemitism in the West.
I do always support having a "gradient" in your reactions, usually in the US politics context. If you don't treat different levels of wrong differently, you relinquish your power to influence behavior of others for the better. That's why treating a Republican who votes 95% with Trump more favorably than the one voting 99% with Trump should still be done.
The key is that you shouldn't lose your "zero" in all this, you should still remember that Mitt Romney is still much worse for US than any Democrat, because he still supported almost every measure that is putting US democracy in peril. By all means regard him better than some MAGA nut, but better doesn't mean well.
Quote from: Jacob on November 30, 2023, 11:25:14 AMIt is clear that Hamas committed horrible atrocities, and there is no letting them off the hook for what they did. Personally, though, I think it's important to understand why and how and to what extent Hamas committed the worst excesses that they did.
Were they planned as high level operational objectives? Were they planned by sub-groups of Hamas? Or were they the acts of individual depravity? That matters because if they were planned by sub-groups, for example, I think it'd be appropriate to identify those groups and target them with extreme prejudice.
By the same token if the atrocities were planned or endorsed by people at a leadership level, or conversely if they were in fact shocked by them, that could be an indication of how the future of the conflict shapes up (because I don't believe it's going to be over in the next few months). Can we expect to see such atrocities as a new normal, or is it possible that Hamas (if they survive, or their successors if they do not) will attempt to prevent such atrocities in the future?
Iran's reaction - for example - seems to indicate that they are not interested in supporting such excess. This does not excuse any of the terrorism the Mullah regime has supported, but I think it is nonetheless worth noting.
Ian Kershaw is a British expert on the Holocaust. One idea that he emphasis is the role propaganda played in causing the Holocaust. I subscribe to this belief and believe something similar can explain the brutality of the Hamas attack. The people who produce this are partly responsible for October 7th.
(https://i.imgur.com/YliTdy6.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/9jd8pC9.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/d2eqMVl.jpg)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 30, 2023, 11:47:47 AMQuote from: Gups on November 30, 2023, 11:42:23 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 30, 2023, 11:08:36 AMQuote from: Threviel on November 30, 2023, 06:29:47 AMWe have a minor ongoing scandal here in Sweden where a Social Democrat parliamentarian of Palestine descent is an active Hamas supporter. He's been a speaker at Hamas conferences and has said a lot of dubious stuff, but not anything really direct.
Good thing you're the one who posted this and not me, as apparently I am a "bigoted troll" when I say things like this.
You're a bigoted troll when you say things like "Muslims are pure evil" and Palestenians are "lower tier humans". poster.
Sure, when I say those things I am being a bigoted troll. But that isn't what spurred that comment--what spurred it was me pointing out rampant and unrestrained antisemitism in the West.
I thought it was a general comment by Jacob - certainly that's what I intended when I posted since I agree there's been a huge and sickening increase in anti-semitic incidents.
Quote from: DGuller on November 30, 2023, 12:26:17 AMIt's funny (not in a ha-ha way) how Overton window works in contexts other than politics. Hamas normalized their behavior to the point where a terrorist can say "we're not savages, we'll smother the baby gently, but no way are we going to behead it", and you have to stop and catch yourself from feeling warm and fuzzy at the display of such humanity.
Is that what happened?
My impression from what Yi said is that in that particular case the baby was not killed, because the Hamas fighters in question found baby killing abhorrent. If that is not true, then I misunderstood.
In my view there are moral differences between
- taking every precaution to avoid killing children, but accidentally doing so in the pursuit of legitimate military objectives;
- pursuing legitimate military objectives and being indifferent to the killing of children;
- having the killing of children be a military objective; and
- having the killing of children be a military objective while looking to maximize the suffering and brutality inflicted.
Relatedly, I think there are moral differences between military organizations that
- have rigorous and consistently applied processes to prevent and punish war crimes being carried out;
- have processes that are haphazardly applied to prevent and punish war crimes;
- try to prevent, but do not punish war crimes;
- tacitly approve warcrimes;
- embrace warcrimes as a legitimate tool of warfare;
- actively celebrate warcrimes as a positive, independently of perceived military efficacy.
Hamas killed children during the Oct 7th attack. The IDF has killed a significant number of children recently, and will probably kill more once the ceasefire is lifted. The US military has killed children during its operations before, and probably will again. Russia continues killing children in Ukraine. A distressing number of children are killed in armed conflicts around the world, and will continue to be killed.
If we wish to distinguish between those killings on moral grounds - that some killings of children are less terrible than others - then I'd think we need to apply some sort of framework. Ideally it's one that goes beyond which side committed the killing or how sympathetic we are towards the group the child was part of.
And I think that as new information comes to light it should - if credible - be integrated into whatever moral assessment we make.
Quote from: Gups on November 30, 2023, 11:54:54 AMI thought it was a general comment by Jacob - certainly that's what I intended when I posted since I agree there's been a huge and sickening increase in anti-semitic incidents.
Yes to the first part, and agreed on the second part.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 30, 2023, 11:47:47 AMSure, when I say those things I am being a bigoted troll. But that isn't what spurred that comment--what spurred it was me pointing out rampant and unrestrained antisemitism in the West.
Exactly.
And when you make sweeping derogatory generalizations about entire countries or "leftists" you are trolling as well. It's not bigoted though.
To be fair, it was a troll comment that spurred my post. The bigoted part referred to earlier actually bigoted posts. Even though they weren't part of the immediate conversation, they still make an impression.
Quote from: Jacob on November 30, 2023, 12:56:59 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 30, 2023, 11:47:47 AMSure, when I say those things I am being a bigoted troll. But that isn't what spurred that comment--what spurred it was me pointing out rampant and unrestrained antisemitism in the West.
Exactly.
And when you make sweeping derogatory generalizations about entire countries or "leftists" you are trolling as well. It's not bigoted though.
To be fair, it was a troll comment that spurred my post. The bigoted part referred to earlier actually bigoted posts. Even though they weren't part of the immediate conversation, they still make an impression.
The concern I have is that it is not just a "troll". I understand that has been internet lingo. But it has become outdated now that the law has caught up to social media. Denigrating an entire religion is contrary to Canadian law. I find myself in the awkward position that my silence to those outrageous posts might be considered as condonation. To be clear, it is not. I am simply exhausted by the ignorance.
Denigrating a religion is freedom of expression. It should never be prohibited by law, and if Canada prohibits it, Canada is a fascist shit hole and should fuck off.
I'm a firm believer in a free society allowing freedom of religious practice, as long as those practices don't involve any degenerate physical activities that are against the societal good (FGM, animal sacrifice et al.) But I don't buy into the idea that religions deserve "inherent respect."
That is a matter of personal judgment to decide if you respect someone's opinions or not. Religious beliefs are just opinions, they aren't immutable characteristics. I say this as someone who is still religious--my religion is a matter of faith, and calling it stupid or dumb or even evil is and should be 100% protected expression.
The idea we should respect Islam is pernicious, evil, and stupid.
Especially since we have so many goofy religious cults in the US. Having to treat all of them with inherent respect would be a lot to ask.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 30, 2023, 01:35:46 PMDenigrating a religion is freedom of expression.
You said you hated all Muslisms.
That is hate speech. You want to use freedom of expression to hide it, have it your way. Don't complain if neo Nazis do the same with Jews.
I don't mind denigrating crazy Muslisms, Jews and Christians myself. I draw the line at condemning all worshippers of a single religion as being the same. Crazy Buddhists have been slaughtering Muslisms in Myanmar.
I am not convinced it is the opinion of all Buddhists that Muslisms should be wiped out from the face of the Earth.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 30, 2023, 01:35:46 PMDenigrating a religion is freedom of expression. It should never be prohibited by law, and if Canada prohibits it, Canada is a fascist shit hole and should fuck off.
I'm a firm believer in a free society allowing freedom of religious practice, as long as those practices don't involve any degenerate physical activities that are against the societal good (FGM, animal sacrifice et al.) But I don't buy into the idea that religions deserve "inherent respect."
That is a matter of personal judgment to decide if you respect someone's opinions or not. Religious beliefs are just opinions, they aren't immutable characteristics. I say this as someone who is still religious--my religion is a matter of faith, and calling it stupid or dumb or even evil is and should be 100% protected expression.
The idea we should respect Islam is pernicious, evil, and stupid.
The idea is that you should respect muslims - that is people who believe in Islam. You can say what you want about the religious validity of that faith.
Since you brought up Canada, here's the applicable law:
QuotePublic incitement of hatred
319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Marginal note:Wilful promotion of antisemitism
(2.1) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Marginal note:Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
Marginal note:Defences — subsection (2.1)
(3.1) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.1)
(a) if they establish that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, they expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds they believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, they intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of antisemitism toward Jews.
Marginal note:Forfeiture
(4) If a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), (2) or (2.1) or section 318, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.
Marginal note:Exemption from seizure of communication facilities
(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to subsection (1), (2) or (2.1) or section 318.
Marginal note:Consent
(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) or (2.1) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.
Marginal note:Definitions
(7) In this section,
communicating includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; (communiquer)
Holocaust means the planned and deliberate state-sponsored persecution and annihilation of European Jewry by the Nazis and their collaborators from 1933 to 1945; (Holocauste)
identifiable group has the same meaning as in section 318; (groupe identifiable)
public place includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied; (endroit public)
statements includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations. (déclarations)
So there are a lot of elements, and a lot of defences. It is very rarely prosecuted - I've never seen a charge.
But lets go through the elements. You hate to "incite hatred" against an "identifiable group" in a way that "is likely to lead to a breach of the peace".
Quote from: Jacob on November 30, 2023, 12:49:50 PMMy impression from what Yi said is that in that particular case the baby was not killed, because the Hamas fighters in question found baby killing abhorrent. If that is not true, then I misunderstood.
FYI it was a non Hamas group.
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2023, 01:45:58 PMEspecially since we have so many goofy religious cults in the US. Having to treat all of them with inherent respect would be a lot to ask.
All people who are X religion are evil.
If that is allowed in the US, you might want to rethink that.
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2023, 02:36:15 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 30, 2023, 01:35:46 PMDenigrating a religion is freedom of expression. It should never be prohibited by law, and if Canada prohibits it, Canada is a fascist shit hole and should fuck off.
I'm a firm believer in a free society allowing freedom of religious practice, as long as those practices don't involve any degenerate physical activities that are against the societal good (FGM, animal sacrifice et al.) But I don't buy into the idea that religions deserve "inherent respect."
That is a matter of personal judgment to decide if you respect someone's opinions or not. Religious beliefs are just opinions, they aren't immutable characteristics. I say this as someone who is still religious--my religion is a matter of faith, and calling it stupid or dumb or even evil is and should be 100% protected expression.
The idea we should respect Islam is pernicious, evil, and stupid.
The idea is that you should respect muslims - that is people who believe in Islam. You can say what you want about the religious validity of that faith.
Since you brought up Canada, here's the applicable law:
QuotePublic incitement of hatred
319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Marginal note:Wilful promotion of antisemitism
(2.1) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Marginal note:Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
Marginal note:Defences — subsection (2.1)
(3.1) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.1)
(a) if they establish that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, they expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds they believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, they intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of antisemitism toward Jews.
Marginal note:Forfeiture
(4) If a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), (2) or (2.1) or section 318, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.
Marginal note:Exemption from seizure of communication facilities
(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to subsection (1), (2) or (2.1) or section 318.
Marginal note:Consent
(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) or (2.1) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.
Marginal note:Definitions
(7) In this section,
communicating includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; (communiquer)
Holocaust means the planned and deliberate state-sponsored persecution and annihilation of European Jewry by the Nazis and their collaborators from 1933 to 1945; (Holocauste)
identifiable group has the same meaning as in section 318; (groupe identifiable)
public place includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied; (endroit public)
statements includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations. (déclarations)
So there are a lot of elements, and a lot of defences. It is very rarely prosecuted - I've never seen a charge.
But lets go through the elements. You hate to "incite hatred" against an "identifiable group" in a way that "is likely to lead to a breach of the peace".
Add to that the violation of both the Canadian and Provincial Human Rights Codes.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 30, 2023, 03:46:24 PMQuote from: Valmy on November 30, 2023, 01:45:58 PMEspecially since we have so many goofy religious cults in the US. Having to treat all of them with inherent respect would be a lot to ask.
All people who are X religion are evil.
If that is allowed in the US, you might want to rethink that.
It is allowed. You may have noticed but we allow all kinds of pretty gross opinions down here.
But I was speaking solely from an ethical point of view. I think it is fine to criticize religions, because as I said we have so many ridiculous religions it would be quite challenging not to, but you shouldn't go after the members of those religions. Not generally anyway.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 30, 2023, 03:10:57 PMFYI it was a non Hamas group.
Thank you for the clarification.
But they participated in the attack orchestrated by Hamas on Oct 7th? Or was this a separate incident at some other place and time?
Quote from: Jacob on November 30, 2023, 04:31:42 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on November 30, 2023, 03:10:57 PMFYI it was a non Hamas group.
Thank you for the clarification.
But they participated in the attack orchestrated by Hamas on Oct 7th? Or was this a separate incident at some other place and time?
Same attack.
I have to side with the gringos here.
Not wild about laws that can be used to stifle legitimate criticism of religion.
We have our own, very similar to the Canadian one.
I have no problem with laws that attempt to curb *hatred*. I do believe however I should be free to express as much contempt, disrespect, or disapproval as i want against anyone. And that's the problem with laws like Canada's.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 30, 2023, 03:46:24 PMQuote from: Valmy on November 30, 2023, 01:45:58 PMEspecially since we have so many goofy religious cults in the US. Having to treat all of them with inherent respect would be a lot to ask.
All people who are X religion are evil.
If that is allowed in the US, you might want to rethink that.
It may not be evil to worship Elon Musk but it is kinda dumb.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 30, 2023, 03:46:24 PMQuote from: Valmy on November 30, 2023, 01:45:58 PMEspecially since we have so many goofy religious cults in the US. Having to treat all of them with inherent respect would be a lot to ask.
All people who are X religion are evil.
If that is allowed in the US, you might want to rethink that.
It's allowed. But saying it about Christians can cut you out of a lot of opportunities.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 30, 2023, 05:06:09 PMNot wild about laws that can be used to stifle legitimate criticism of religion.
They aren't used in that way.
Unless you count denial of the Holocaust as a legitimate criticism of Judaism.
Jew hating Americans, I supposed. You can never trust the Dems to go along for the slaughter of Arabs when need be:
Blinken said to Israel to change strategy for southern Gaza (https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/blinken-said-to-tell-israel-to-change-strategy-for-southern-gaza-suggest-it-wont-have-months-to-win-war/)
Israel knew of Hamas attack one year in advance
(https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/30/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-attack-intelligence.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare)
At this point, it's criminal negligence.
Yeah that's not a good look.
Quote from: Josquius on November 30, 2023, 10:00:30 AMSweden isn't the UK and all that. But should be noted "Lefties afraid of upsetting muslim voters that they rely on" is a common dog whistle from the far right in the UK.
Quickly checking up I get total numbers of Muslims in Sweden as between 200,000 and 800,000 so not too different in terms of total percentage to here.
Yeah, you're right. Numbers seem iffy, but in my defense I said I hadn't found proof. I'll see if I can find some proper numbers.
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2023, 03:53:21 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 30, 2023, 03:46:24 PMQuote from: Valmy on November 30, 2023, 01:45:58 PMEspecially since we have so many goofy religious cults in the US. Having to treat all of them with inherent respect would be a lot to ask.
All people who are X religion are evil.
If that is allowed in the US, you might want to rethink that.
It is allowed. You may have noticed but we allow all kinds of pretty gross opinions down here.
But I was speaking solely from an ethical point of view. I think it is fine to criticize religions, because as I said we have so many ridiculous religions it would be quite challenging not to, but you shouldn't go after the members of those religions. Not generally anyway.
I am aware the US allows what would be considered hate speech elsewhere. I simply note you might want to consider the wisdom of that.
But more than to the point it is contrary to our human rights code, both federal and provincial.
It just gets treated as trolling in this space and that is what makes me think about the wisdom of continuing to be a member of this community.
We need someone new to join Languish who says jews are pernicious and evil to even things out imo
Again just me hurr-durring but why do I have to go to Hungarian news reports and cannot see it on the Guardian's live feed that while the IDF resumed heavy bombings yes, Hamas fired in the same time period 50 rockets at southern Israel? They don't have to write the two are the same thing or scale but wouldn't it warrant a mention .
Quote from: Tamas on December 01, 2023, 01:46:29 PMAgain just me hurr-durring but why do I have to go to Hungarian news reports and cannot see it on the Guardian's live feed that while the IDF resumed heavy bombings yes, Hamas fired in the same time period 50 rockets at southern Israel? They don't have to write the two are the same thing or scale but wouldn't it warrant a mention .
You're not the only one to notice that. I saw a bunch of complaints on Twitter about headlines that make no reference to Hamas doing anything and only mentioning that Israel has resumed it's campaign.
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2023, 01:48:02 PMQuote from: Tamas on December 01, 2023, 01:46:29 PMAgain just me hurr-durring but why do I have to go to Hungarian news reports and cannot see it on the Guardian's live feed that while the IDF resumed heavy bombings yes, Hamas fired in the same time period 50 rockets at southern Israel? They don't have to write the two are the same thing or scale but wouldn't it warrant a mention .
You're not the only one to notice that. I saw a bunch of complaints on Twitter about headlines that make no reference to Hamas doing anything and only mentioning that Israel has resumed it's campaign.
But it is lovely to see on the news feed first that Erdogan at COP28, then the United Auto Workers of the US both called for a ceasefire. What a team. Gotta' admit anyone but the Jews would struggle to have such coalitions built.
Quote from: Tamas on December 01, 2023, 01:46:29 PMAgain just me hurr-durring but why do I have to go to Hungarian news reports and cannot see it on the Guardian's live feed that while the IDF resumed heavy bombings yes, Hamas fired in the same time period 50 rockets at southern Israel? They don't have to write the two are the same thing or scale but wouldn't it warrant a mention .
the media has bias and an agenda. That goes for all media, it's one of the reasons you shouldn't trust them out of the box.
Maybe it's because the Guardian news feed is rubbish? The BBC were reporting that Hamas were firing rockets at Israel this morning.
The coverage I saw mentioned that both Israel and Hamas have commenced operations.
Quote from: Tamas on December 01, 2023, 01:46:29 PMAgain just me hurr-durring but why do I have to go to Hungarian news reports and cannot see it on the Guardian's live feed that while the IDF resumed heavy bombings yes, Hamas fired in the same time period 50 rockets at southern Israel? They don't have to write the two are the same thing or scale but wouldn't it warrant a mention .
I get your point.
But I'd guess this is because Hamas ineffectually shooting rockets at Israel is hardly news, whilst Israel gearing up for a big new offensive to smash the other half of Gaza is?
Looking at things from the other side you don't see too much reporting of the increased Israeli expansion in the west bank or various other bits of day to day shit thrown the Palestinians way.
It's bad but....its no longer news in the way say Italy suddenly firing a rocket at Slovenia would be.
Quote from: Josquius on December 01, 2023, 06:36:29 PMI get your point.
But I'd guess this is because Hamas ineffectually shooting rockets at Israel is hardly news, whilst Israel gearing up for a big new offensive to smash the other half of Gaza is?
It's obviously news.
"One side commence fighting after the ceasefire expires" is a very different kind of news than "both sides commence fighting after the ceasefire expires."
Quote from: Jacob on December 01, 2023, 06:39:42 PMQuote from: Josquius on December 01, 2023, 06:36:29 PMI get your point.
But I'd guess this is because Hamas ineffectually shooting rockets at Israel is hardly news, whilst Israel gearing up for a big new offensive to smash the other half of Gaza is?
It's obviously news.
"One side commence fighting after the ceasefire expires" is a very different kind of news than "both sides commence fighting after the ceasefire expires."
Hamas has been launching rockets at Israel for basically as long as they've been a thing.
Knowledge many might not be aware of, but a fact nonetheless.
It's part of the general back ground of shit in the whole situation dating back long before October
Israels invasion of Gaza is something altogether new and different.
Besides. Even if you do just read the headline of Israel attacking I do think it's implied Hamas would be shooting back. And considering Hamas hasn't managed to kill anyone whilst Israel has killed over 100...the Israeli strikes definitely deserve to dominate the news feed.
Quote from: Josquius on December 01, 2023, 06:50:54 PMBesides. Even if you do just read the headline of Israel attacking I do think it's implied Hamas would be shooting back. And considering Hamas hasn't managed to kill anyone whilst Israel has killed over 100...the Israeli strikes definitely deserve to dominate the news feed.
Do we know this is true? That Israel attacked first and Hamas responded?
The bit I read implied that Hamas started their attacks first, but I don't think it's safe to assume that either side would hold back and wait with their attacks until attacked first once the ceasefire ended.
Here's what the CBC said:
QuoteAbout an hour before the ceasefire was to expire early Friday, Israel said it intercepted a volley of rockets fired from Gaza. Minutes after it expired, the military announced a resumption of combat operations and strikes soon began.
I'm sure you can find things to quibble with depending on your point of view, but the takeaway that both sides were ready to continue fighting seems reasonable to me.
Quote from: Jacob on December 01, 2023, 07:55:24 PMI'm sure you can find things to quibble with depending on your point of view, but the takeaway that both sides were ready to continue fighting.
Plenty to quibble with. Hamas fired first. Before the agreed upon cease fire had expired.
All the Palestine supporters in the west can suck on that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2023, 08:03:33 PMPlenty to quibble with. Hamas fired first. Before the agreed upon cease fire had expired.
All the Palestine supporters in the west can suck on that.
The counter-quibble is that Hamas firing first is based on "Israel said" which carries an amount of weight proportional to how much you trust Israel to be truthful in this case (modified by how likely it is someone would be able to verify and call Israel out if they did lie).
But yeah, I agree that Hamas choosing to fire rockets before the ceasefire expired is not "hardly news".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2023, 08:03:33 PMAll the Palestine supporters in the west can suck on that.
What does that change?
Hamas fired first, ok. The truce ended.
We knew it was going to end.
110 hostages have been freed. I think that was worth it for both sides.
Yeah, the hostage releases were a real positive note.
Quote from: viper37 on December 01, 2023, 09:14:53 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2023, 08:03:33 PMAll the Palestine supporters in the west can suck on that.
What does that change?
Hamas fired first, ok. The truce ended.
We knew it was going to end.
110 hostages have been freed. I think that was worth it for both sides.
We didn't know it was going to end until it did.
What it changes is the resonance of the chants calling for a cease fire. The pro Palestinian demonstrators are running out of catchy slogans.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2023, 09:25:15 PMQuote from: viper37 on December 01, 2023, 09:14:53 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2023, 08:03:33 PMAll the Palestine supporters in the west can suck on that.
What does that change?
Hamas fired first, ok. The truce ended.
We knew it was going to end.
110 hostages have been freed. I think that was worth it for both sides.
We didn't it was going to end until it did.
What it changes is the resonance of the chants calling for a cease fire. The pro Palestinian demonstrators are running out of catchy slogans.
The truce was supposed to end at 7:00am this morning.
Israel went on the offensive in the West Bank this week, killing two kids, one of them 8 years old.
One unarmed, the other with something in his hand that might have been dynamite, according to the IDF, if we trust them on their word.
What is certain is they prevented any medical aid from reaching them, any attempt to help the first injured boy.
Videos purportedly show 2 Palestinian boys shot dead during Israeli raid in West Bank (https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/west-bank-palestinian-boys-shot-1.7044430)
Then, Hamas had two gunman (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67575684) killing Israeli civilians in Jerusalem, and one person was killed by friendly fire.
Hamas also claims Israel refused to extend the ceasefire. Israel claims Hamas refuse to give precision on the remaining hostages.
I have little faith on Hamas. I have little faith on this government.
Going into the West Bank for a raid while there was a truce in Gaza was provocation in the current volatile climate. It's like they wanted the truce to be over asap. It could have waited a couple more days. All of these attacks in the West Bank are related to the government's policies.
The Israelis wanted the truce to be over so they tricked Hamas into firing bunch of rockets before the cease fire expired. Israel didn't want to make peace so they tricked the people of Gaza into voting for Hamas and then tricked Hamas into launching a bunch of attacks.
Israel has been very clear that each day they get 10 hostages the cease fire gets extended. I see no indication that Israel has cheated on those terms.
What are your thoughts on the reported Israeli raid in the West Bank?
I don't have any yet.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2023, 10:20:03 PMThe Israelis wanted the truce to be over so they tricked Hamas into firing bunch of rockets before the cease fire expired. Israel didn't want to make peace so they tricked the people of Gaza into voting for Hamas and then tricked Hamas into launching a bunch of attacks.
Israel has been very clear that each day they get 10 hostages the cease fire gets extended. I see no indication that Israel has cheated on those terms.
They didn't need to trick Hamas into anything. They already announced they would keep the war going until Hamas was destroyed.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-gallant-emphatic-war-will-resume-soon-as-truce-appears-set-for-extension/
QuotePrime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated Wednesday that the war to destroy terror group Hamas will resume as soon as an ongoing process to secure the release of hostages held captive in the Gaza Strip comes to an end.
His vow to continue the fight was echoed by the other two members of the war cabinet, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and Minister Benny Gantz, as well as by IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, who all issued statements of readiness to immediately progress with the military campaign.
Meanwhile, with talks underway to potentially extend the current deal beyond Wednesday for another two or more days, an official from the Prime Minister's Office said Israel will push for all children and civilian women hostages to be released through the current ceasefire deal before broadening negotiations to free adult male and soldier hostages.
Israel has vowed to destroy Hamas after it carried out a massive cross-border terror attack last month, invading from the Gaza Strip and slaughtering over 1,200 people in southern Israel, mostly civilians. Terrorists also abducted at least 240 as hostages.
Under the terms of a temporary truce, Hamas has every day released about 10 Israeli women and children held captive, in return for Israel pausing its offensive and allowing additional humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip. Israel has also released three Palestinian security prisoners held in prisons in exchange for each hostage set free. The truce, which began last Friday, was approved by the cabinet to stretch to up to 10 days if Hamas continues to release hostages.
In a statement, Netanyahu said that destroying Hamas was still a prime objective along with returning hostages to Israel.
"From the beginning of the war, I set three goals: the elimination of Hamas, the return of all our abductees, and to ensure that Gaza will never again be a threat to Israel," the prime minister said. "These three goals remain in place."
He said the release of dozens of hostages during the truce over the past week was "a very great achievement" but added that "after this phase of returning our abductees is exhausted," Israel will "unequivocally" return to the fight.
It wasn't an end to the war, it was a temporary truce.
We discussed it here before it began, not expecting Hamas to abide y the terms at all. In the end, 110 hostages were freed.
I'd say it's a miracle half the hostages were freed.
I've never said Hamas was trustworthy. But it seems clear no one of these two had plans for a peace. Only a temporary reprieve.
As for the tactics used by Israel, your government seems to have issues with the way Israel conducts its war, despite its support. Indication has been given that things must change. Another public rebuttal to Israel.
I would very like you to point me to Obama saying the same publicly to Israel in previous wars.
I don't really care who shot first because obviously neither side was going to not resume hostilities and both would have an interest in claiming the other side resumed first.
My original point was about maintaining a veneer of impartiality. Which the Guardian has lost nearly all interest in when it comes to this, and they are making me question why I bother reading them between such reporting, the Owen Jones and Simon Jenkins publications, and tbe one per four hours pan-Muslim wailings published.
Quote from: Tamas on December 02, 2023, 04:18:46 AMI don't really care who shot first because obviously neither side was going to not resume hostilities and both would have an interest in claiming the other side resumed first.
My original point was about maintaining a veneer of impartiality. Which the Guardian has lost nearly all interest in when it comes to this, and they are making me question why I bother reading them between such reporting, the Owen Jones and Simon Jenkins publications, and tbe one per four hours pan-Muslim wailings published.
Mainly I'm not sure what is a better UK outlet to look at.
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2023, 05:12:53 AMQuote from: Tamas on December 02, 2023, 04:18:46 AMI don't really care who shot first because obviously neither side was going to not resume hostilities and both would have an interest in claiming the other side resumed first.
My original point was about maintaining a veneer of impartiality. Which the Guardian has lost nearly all interest in when it comes to this, and they are making me question why I bother reading them between such reporting, the Owen Jones and Simon Jenkins publications, and tbe one per four hours pan-Muslim wailings published.
Mainly I'm not sure what is a better UK outlet to look at.
Yeah.
U.S. to impose visa bans soon on Israeli extremist settlers for West Bank violence (https://www.reuters.com/world/us-impose-visa-bans-soon-israeli-extremist-settlers-west-bank-violence-2023-12-01/)
Quote"I have been emphatic with Israel's leaders that extremist violence against Palestinians in the West Bank must stop and that those committing the violence must be held accountable. The United States is prepared to take our own steps, including issuing visa bans against extremists attacking civilians in the West Bank," Biden wrote.
The State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, said Washington wanted Israel to prosecute perpetrators but had yet to see such a step. The bans could come in the next few weeks, the official said.
Daily settler attacks have more than doubled, U.N. figures show, since Hamas, which controls the coastal enclave of Gaza to Israel's southwest, killed 1,200 Israelis and took about 240 hostage. Israel has since bombed and invaded Gaza, killing more than 15,000 people.
It seems the US is seeing something others are still too blind to see.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2023, 10:58:32 AMQuote from: Valmy on November 30, 2023, 03:53:21 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 30, 2023, 03:46:24 PMQuote from: Valmy on November 30, 2023, 01:45:58 PMEspecially since we have so many goofy religious cults in the US. Having to treat all of them with inherent respect would be a lot to ask.
All people who are X religion are evil.
If that is allowed in the US, you might want to rethink that.
It is allowed. You may have noticed but we allow all kinds of pretty gross opinions down here.
But I was speaking solely from an ethical point of view. I think it is fine to criticize religions, because as I said we have so many ridiculous religions it would be quite challenging not to, but you shouldn't go after the members of those religions. Not generally anyway.
I am aware the US allows what would be considered hate speech elsewhere. I simply note you might want to consider the wisdom of that.
But more than to the point it is contrary to our human rights code, both federal and provincial.
It just gets treated as trolling in this space and that is what makes me think about the wisdom of continuing to be a member of this community.
Well don't complain to me. I lack moderation powers.
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2023, 05:12:53 AMQuote from: Tamas on December 02, 2023, 04:18:46 AMI don't really care who shot first because obviously neither side was going to not resume hostilities and both would have an interest in claiming the other side resumed first.
My original point was about maintaining a veneer of impartiality. Which the Guardian has lost nearly all interest in when it comes to this, and they are making me question why I bother reading them between such reporting, the Owen Jones and Simon Jenkins publications, and tbe one per four hours pan-Muslim wailings published.
Mainly I'm not sure what is a better UK outlet to look at.
The Daily Telegraph :P :P
A Canadian has no more business speaking to an American on free speech than a lion might tell an eagle how to fly.
This whole line of discussion about "Muslims being evil" is frankly horseshit.
This is the bullshit the left has been promoting for decades to try and make excuses for Islam and its many extremists.
It is a tried, and tired, playbook.
1. Link "respect for Islam" with things like racial justice, trying to frame it as "being supportive of brown people" (ignoring may Muslims are in all senses of the term, "white", including many Palestinians and Arabs in general who frequently identify as White in countries like the U.S. that track that in their census--and even more obviously groups like Turks, Iranians etc.)
2. Try to equate hating Islam with hating people for an immutable characteristic, like race.
3. Try to promulgate a fake value that it is a human rights requirement to "respect" a religion. This has lead to some pretty terrible policies coming out in places like Sweden (which banned the burning of a fucking book over it.)
Let's be quite fucking clear--Muslims in any free country should be allowed to freely practice and exercise their religion, and to engage in religious speech and expression.
There is no legal, and absolutely no moral requirement anyone respect a religion.
There are many crazy religions out there--if a religion teaches that Adolf Hitler was God and all Jews must be killed, that religion is evil. People who adhere to that religion are evil.
I believe the tenets of Islam are intrinsically evil, hence anyone who adheres to those tenets is also intrinsically evil.
By the way--as a Christian, I have heard critiques of my religion my entire life, including by atheist activists who sometimes make similar arguments about Christianity. And you know what? That's fine. People are absolutely entitled to say my religion is evil. People are allowed their opinions. If they genuinely believe the tenets of the Catholic Church are evil, they are correct to say all adherent Catholics are evil. That isn't bigotry, it isn't a human rights issue.
I obviously take issue and strongly disagree with that opinion, but people having negative views of someone else's religious faith is not exactly new--and I'd far prefer people express those negative opinions ala Christopher Hitchens than in the manner of the guys who did the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
Yeah my biggest gripe with accusations of "Islamophobia" is that actual critiques of the religion (not talking about racists being racists and using Islam the same way they use crime statistics or whatever) are nothing Christianity haven't had to endure for 60 years at least, or quite a bit more. And it was a bloody centuries-long fight to get to the point where you can criticise a religion. We shouldn't be giving up that hard-fought ground. We would not give it up for rednecks in Missouri or whatever, why give it up for backward Muslims? There's plenty of Muslims who can be reasonable about their own religion and criticism of it like most Christians do so why give the radicals more ground? Because they are not white?
Fuuuuck.
Wrote a long reply and the forum ate it.
To try to remember... So many right wing fallacies there.
"Islamophobia isn't racist because Islam isn't a race" - such a transparent dodge.
Arabs consider themselves white? Well that means people can't possibly be racist against them then?
The vast majority of islamophobia in the west and racism are clearly drawn from the same place.
If we imagine a silly theoretical where everything in the middle east is exactly the same except the majority have a non Muslim religion do you really think everyone would be cool with it?
Post 9-11 islamophobia is a pretty clear tool racists use to try and chip away at the most exposed minority. This is where most hate against Islam you're likely to run into comes from.
Also the whole "criticising Christians is OK! Double standards! " - it's not. Criticism of Christianity gets called out far more than islamophobia.
Also needs noting the difference between criticism and hate.
Put together a properly researched argument about why some aspect of Islam is bad - this is fine. But that's not what most islamophobia is. It's ignorant misinformed nonsense.
Additionally there is the factor of people taking aim at their own group vs a powerful outsider shitting on an other. Athiests in the west are largely from a Christian background.
Also. Forgot a bit - a religion with a thousand years of history and many millions of followers does deserve some level of basic respect where that cult formed last Tuesday with 10 followers does not. Pretty common sense why this is so.
Quote from: Josquius on December 03, 2023, 11:24:27 AM"Islamophobia isn't racist because Islam isn't a race" - such a transparent dodge.
Islam isn't a race, full stop. That isn't a dodge, it's a simple fucking fact. The entire rest of your post is predicated on you posting things you
know are factually untrue. This is the typical leftist playbook on Islam apologia.
Quote from: Josquius on December 03, 2023, 11:24:27 AMAlso. Forgot a bit - a religion with a thousand years of history and many millions of followers does deserve some level of basic respect where that cult formed last Tuesday with 10 followers does not. Pretty common sense why this is so.
Could you elaborate?
Quote from: Tamas on December 03, 2023, 11:15:26 AMYeah my biggest gripe with accusations of "Islamophobia" is that actual critiques of the religion (not talking about racists being racists and using Islam the same way they use crime statistics or whatever) are nothing Christianity haven't had to endure for 60 years at least, or quite a bit more. And it was a bloody centuries-long fight to get to the point where you can criticise a religion. We shouldn't be giving up that hard-fought ground. We would not give it up for rednecks in Missouri or whatever, why give it up for backward Muslims? There's plenty of Muslims who can be reasonable about their own religion and criticism of it like most Christians do so why give the radicals more ground? Because they are not white?
I honestly don't know where that line of discussion comes from.
OvB says he hates all Muslism and Palestinians should be deported from Israel to make room fro the Jewish population.
Raz approves of the solution implemented by Israel to clear the land of the Palestinians.
Other pro-Israelis agree it's a sensible solution.
Where's the cricitism of the religion in there?
If a man enters a gay club and starts shooting at people, is it free speech or homophobia?
If a suicide bomber targets a Church, is it criticism of Christiniaty?
If an Imam declares that all Jews are vermin and should be eradicated from the Earth, do we all agree here that's a valid criticism of Judaism based on the holy scriptures? I guess not...
So, why should saying the same about Muslims be "criticism of the religion" ?
This is the part I never understood.
If an Israeli says the Palestinians should all be killed or deported, it's assessing Israel's right to defend itself.
If a Palestinian says all Israelis should be killed or deported, it's a proof these people are all evil.
Fuck it.
I reject both of these notions.
Quote from: viper37 on December 03, 2023, 12:16:57 PMRaz approves of the solution implemented by Israel to clear the land of the Palestinians.
My memory is failing in my old age, could you show me where I posted that?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 03, 2023, 12:18:26 PMQuote from: viper37 on December 03, 2023, 12:16:57 PMRaz approves of the solution implemented by Israel to clear the land of the Palestinians.
My memory is failing in my old age, could you show me where I posted that?
Show me where you disagreed with Israel's current policies of expelling Palestinians from their homes.
Quote from: viper37 on December 03, 2023, 12:23:46 PMQuote from: Razgovory on December 03, 2023, 12:18:26 PMQuote from: viper37 on December 03, 2023, 12:16:57 PMRaz approves of the solution implemented by Israel to clear the land of the Palestinians.
My memory is failing in my old age, could you show me where I posted that?
Show me where you disagreed with Israel's current policies of expelling Palestinians from their homes.
Yeah, that's what I thought. Don't slander me no more, got it?
Quote from: viper37 on December 03, 2023, 12:16:57 PMQuote from: Tamas on December 03, 2023, 11:15:26 AMYeah my biggest gripe with accusations of "Islamophobia" is that actual critiques of the religion (not talking about racists being racists and using Islam the same way they use crime statistics or whatever) are nothing Christianity haven't had to endure for 60 years at least, or quite a bit more. And it was a bloody centuries-long fight to get to the point where you can criticise a religion. We shouldn't be giving up that hard-fought ground. We would not give it up for rednecks in Missouri or whatever, why give it up for backward Muslims? There's plenty of Muslims who can be reasonable about their own religion and criticism of it like most Christians do so why give the radicals more ground? Because they are not white?
I honestly don't know where that line of discussion comes from.
OvB says he hates all Muslism and Palestinians should be deported from Israel to make room fro the Jewish population.
Raz approves of the solution implemented by Israel to clear the land of the Palestinians.
Other pro-Israelis agree it's a sensible solution.
Where's the cricitism of the religion in there?
To be fair it was a general observation of the state of things and not specifically a reaction to the posts here. Maybe it's different in the Americas but in the UK even criticism of the hijab -a symbol of female subservience- is labelled Islamophobia.
Quote from: viper37 on December 03, 2023, 12:16:57 PMOvB says he hates all Muslism and Palestinians should be deported from Israel to make room fro the Jewish population.
I never said this--and this is where I write you off. This is at least the 2nd time you blatantly lied in this thread.
I now assume the following about you:
1. You literally hate Jews, and are an antisemitic scumbag
2. You are happy about the 10/7 attack, probably gleefully laughing to reports of Israeli women being raped and murdered and babies being killed
3. You are a monstrous genocidal piece of shit who wants to see all the Jews in Israel in Muslim death camps
Islamophobia is a word invented purely for the purpose of browbeating people who are opposed to Islam, regardless of what form that opposition takes as long as it is non-violent, into submission. It's no better than calling everyone you disagree with a fascist, nazi, communist, racist or any other epithet that'll shut down the conversation.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 03, 2023, 01:51:38 PMIslamophobia is a word invented purely for the purpose of browbeating people who are opposed to Islam, regardless of what form that opposition takes as long as it is non-violent, into submission. It's no better than calling everyone you disagree with a fascist, nazi, communist, racist or any other epithet that'll shut down the conversation.
Yep, it is an attempt to delegitimize
opposition to an ideology, Islam is an ideology. It is not a race. It is not a gender. Beliefs can be rejected and opposed. The opposite of that is a world in which free expression is disallowed when it offends other people's personal beliefs.
Quote from: Josquius on December 03, 2023, 11:24:27 AMIf we imagine a silly theoretical where everything in the middle east is exactly the same except the majority have a non Muslim religion do you really think everyone would be cool with it?
If I imagine a Middle East where everyone is another religion but they still practice genital mutilation, make their women wear tents, engage in honor killings, don't let their daughters go to school, stone gays and adulterers to death and engage in a high level of political violence I would not be cool with that hypothetical religion either.
If the Palestinians were white Evangelical Christians my opinions would likely be similar. I doubt either many of on the right or the far left would have the same opinion though. Those people who take up the Palestinian struggle in the name of fighting white supremacy would probably have a different view point this particular decolonization struggle. Ditto for the religious right in America.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 03, 2023, 11:49:39 AMQuote from: Josquius on December 03, 2023, 11:24:27 AM"Islamophobia isn't racist because Islam isn't a race" - such a transparent dodge.
Islam isn't a race, full stop. That isn't a dodge, it's a simple fucking fact. The entire rest of your post is predicated on you posting things you know are factually untrue. This is the typical leftist playbook on Islam apologia.
:lmfao:
Projection, number one in the hard right playbook
Also dodging actual replies that put you in an awkward position. That's in there too.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 03, 2023, 12:16:33 PMQuote from: Josquius on December 03, 2023, 11:24:27 AMAlso. Forgot a bit - a religion with a thousand years of history and many millions of followers does deserve some level of basic respect where that cult formed last Tuesday with 10 followers does not. Pretty common sense why this is so.
Could you elaborate?
In what way?
If you're going to say 12 guys on the street corner shouting about the sausage god are lunatics that's fair enough. No need to look into what they actually believe there.
If you're going to make a sweeping attack on a billion people....Yeah. You should really check your facts first. Lots of very decent people being swept up in that.
Also in terms of harmonious relations on earth- 12 people being upset for being dismissed as crazy is quite a different thing to shitting on a billion like so. Even for 100% proven fact vile murderous dictatorships there is a basic level of diplomatic respect countries use that doesn't apply to individual psychopaths. And that's not what we're talking about here.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 03, 2023, 02:04:17 PMQuote from: Josquius on December 03, 2023, 11:24:27 AMIf we imagine a silly theoretical where everything in the middle east is exactly the same except the majority have a non Muslim religion do you really think everyone would be cool with it?
If I imagine a Middle East where everyone is another religion but they still practice genital mutilation, make their women wear tents, engage in honor killings, don't let their daughters go to school, stone gays and adulterers to death and engage in a high level of political violence I would not be cool with that hypothetical religion either.
Yes.
(Also irrelevant but- I'm pretty sure genital mutilation is more an East African than Middle Eastern thing)
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2023, 05:12:53 AMQuote from: Tamas on December 02, 2023, 04:18:46 AMI don't really care who shot first because obviously neither side was going to not resume hostilities and both would have an interest in claiming the other side resumed first.
My original point was about maintaining a veneer of impartiality. Which the Guardian has lost nearly all interest in when it comes to this, and they are making me question why I bother reading them between such reporting, the Owen Jones and Simon Jenkins publications, and tbe one per four hours pan-Muslim wailings published.
Mainly I'm not sure what is a better UK outlet to look at.
The Times is vastly better but you have to pay. Ditto the FT and the Economist.
Just read the Daily Mail, it is Britain's most popular paper.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 03, 2023, 01:51:38 PMIslamophobia is a word invented purely for the purpose of browbeating people who are opposed to Islam, regardless of what form that opposition takes as long as it is non-violent, into submission. It's no better than calling everyone you disagree with a fascist, nazi, communist, racist or any other epithet that'll shut down the conversation.
Really it should be Muslimophobia because often people just hate them for what they look like or what their culture is, it doesn't even matter if the person is religious or not.
My problem with Islam is the apostasy thing. We have a big problem in this country already with enforced shunning and persecution of people for apostasy. We have a huge LGBT youth homeless problem because fucking religious nuts disown their kids and shit. And here we have this religion that not just puts social pressure on you to shun and persecute apostates but has a long tradition of state mandated persecution up to and including the death penalty. Now granted since the late 19th century Muslims have backed off this a bit, but not because Islam doesn't demand you persecute apostates but because Muslims find it distasteful. This reflects very well on Muslims but not so much on Islam. And even today we have 62% of Malaysian Muslims saying that apostates should get the death penalty. And that is the death penalty. I mean we are not even talking about disowning children, shunning friends and relatives, firing people from their jobs and all the usual disgusting way apostates are treated by religions.
And bare in mind Islam is a religion you can be born into. So you really have no choice. You are brought in through your parents and social pressure and then compelled to stay...perhaps even through legal force. And it was almost universally this way, and considered a good thing, from the 7th century until the late 19th century.
So yeah. Not too happy to see another religion with that kind of culty background spreading through the western world. But I just have to hope most Muslims are better than their religion, and to be fair to them they seem to be outside of some specific places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Palestine, Jordan, and Egypt. Granted those are not exactly tiny and insignificant Muslim countries.
Yes the 58.7% of all the Muslim Palestinians want to legally murder anybody who leaves Islam. Further reason why I don't trust them. Oh but maybe not all of them support Hamas so it's ok. Fuck those kids who don't want to be part of their parents religion. And I bet a lot more are in favor of persecution of Apostates that stop short of actual murder. So yeah if Palestine wants my support they have to assure me they will not create a state that is going to vote in those sorts of laws. Palestine being distinct from Palestinians, who of course I support the human rights of. Palestine and it institutions? Not so much.
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2023, 11:24:47 AMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 03, 2023, 01:51:38 PMIslamophobia is a word invented purely for the purpose of browbeating people who are opposed to Islam, regardless of what form that opposition takes as long as it is non-violent, into submission. It's no better than calling everyone you disagree with a fascist, nazi, communist, racist or any other epithet that'll shut down the conversation.
Really it should be Muslimophobia because often people just hate them for what they look like or what their culture is, it doesn't even matter if the person is religious or not.
My problem with Islam is the apostasy thing. We have a big problem in this country already with enforced shunning and persecution of people for apostasy. We have a huge LGBT youth homeless problem because fucking religious nuts disown their kids and shit. And here we have this religion that not just puts social pressure on you to shun and persecute apostates but has a long tradition of state mandated persecution up to and including the death penalty. Now granted since the late 19th century Muslims have backed off this a bit, but not because Islam doesn't demand you persecute apostates but because Muslims find it distasteful. This reflects very well on Muslims but not so much on Islam. And even today we have 62% of Malaysian Muslims saying that apostates should get the death penalty. And that is the death penalty. I mean we are not even talking about disowning children, shunning friends and relatives, firing people from their jobs and all the usual disgusting way apostates are treated by religions.
And bare in mind Islam is a religion you can be born into. So you really have no choice. You are brought in through your parents and social pressure and then compelled to stay...perhaps even through legal force. And it was almost universally this way, and considered a good thing, from the 7th century until the late 19th century.
So yeah. Not too happy to see another religion with that kind of culty background spreading through the western world. But I just have to hope most Muslims are better than their religion, and to be fair to them they seem to be outside of some specific places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Palestine, Jordan, and Egypt. Granted those are not exactly tiny and insignificant Muslim countries.
Yes the 58.7% of all the Muslim Palestinians want to legally murder anybody who leaves Islam. Further reason why I don't trust them. Oh but maybe not all of them support Hamas so it's ok. Fuck those kids who don't want to be part of their parents religion. And I bet a lot more are in favor of persecution of Apostates that stop short of actual murder. So yeah if Palestine wants my support they have to assure me they will not create a state that is going to vote in those sorts of laws. Palestine being distinct from Palestinians, who of course I support the human rights of. Palestine and it institutions? Not so much.
don't disagree.
It's one of the reason why the useful idiots that enable this retrograde behaviour in the west annoy the frick out of me, especially since these people often come from groups or parties that in the not so distant past agitated vehemently against the excesses of christianity and for separation of church and state. Now they refuse to do the same to free the newcomers from the clutches of a suffocating system, and suddenly that separation isn't important anymore either.
That said: I wouldn't want to give the secret atheists, agnosts, ex-muslims and so in the Maghreb and Near-East dinner, as I've got a feeling there's a lot of them. But that's just a suspicion I have based on what a number of people from the region have let slip.
You fail to understand why people oppose islamophobia.
If you want Muslims to step away from ultra conservatism and all it's attached shit then screaming bloody murder at them and putting them into a siege mentality Is not a smart approach
Rather you provide them with opportunities and choice. You let them make their own way in the world and don't force them into "ghettos".
The useful idiots are the white far right. Islamic extremists absolutely love the far right and Islamophobia as it delivers previously moderate Muslims right into their hands.
A comedy scene but it really does sum up how they think -
https://youtu.be/QRx7ZqcKn0o?si=lduAM7DEr30An4sG
It's the left with our ideas of tolerance and diversity that really get their beards in a twist. We represent everything they detest... And provide a genuine threat to their ability to form a powerbase.
It's not neo nazis screaming Mohammed is a paedo that are going to defeat Islamic fundamentalism.
Its pop music, skinny jeans, and the ability to just be who you want to be.
Just the kind of stuff viper / josq defend:
QuoteUS official: Hamas not freeing women hostages so they won't tell 'what happened to them'
US State Department spokesman Matthew Miller suggests that Hamas is holding onto a number of female Israeli hostages because it does not want them to testify about what they experienced in captivity.
"The fact that they continue to hold women hostages, the fact that they continue to hold children hostages, just the fact that it seems one of the reasons they don't want to turn women over they've been holding hostage, and the reason this pause fell apart, is they don't want those women to be able to talk about what happened to them during their time in custody," says Miller, in response to a question from a reporter about growing evidence of Hamas rape and sexual abuse on October 7.
"There is very little that I would put beyond Hamas when it comes to its treatment of civilians, and particularly its treatment of women," he adds.
A young Israeli woman seen on October 7 in Gaza being taken captive while the seat of her sweatpants was covered in blood remains a hostage in Gaza.
Quote from: Josquius on December 04, 2023, 03:10:16 PMIf you want Muslims to step away from ultra conservatism and all it's attached shit then screaming bloody murder at them and putting them into a siege mentality Is not a smart approach
Would this apply Christian conservatives as well?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 04, 2023, 03:53:05 PMJust the kind of stuff viper / josq defend:
QuoteUS official: Hamas not freeing women hostages so they won't tell 'what happened to them'
US State Department spokesman Matthew Miller suggests that Hamas is holding onto a number of female Israeli hostages because it does not want them to testify about what they experienced in captivity.
"The fact that they continue to hold women hostages, the fact that they continue to hold children hostages, just the fact that it seems one of the reasons they don't want to turn women over they've been holding hostage, and the reason this pause fell apart, is they don't want those women to be able to talk about what happened to them during their time in custody," says Miller, in response to a question from a reporter about growing evidence of Hamas rape and sexual abuse on October 7.
"There is very little that I would put beyond Hamas when it comes to its treatment of civilians, and particularly its treatment of women," he adds.
A young Israeli woman seen on October 7 in Gaza being taken captive while the seat of her sweatpants was covered in blood remains a hostage in Gaza.
Violence in everyday behaviour, violence against the past that is emptied of all substance, violence against the future, for the colonial regime presents itself as necessarily eternal. We see, therefore, that the colonized people, caught in a web of a three-dimensional violence, a meeting point of multiple, diverse, repeated, cumulative violences, are soon logically confronted by the problem of ending the colonial regime by any means necessary. —Frantz Fanon, Alienation and Freedom: part 3, chapter 22, "Why we use violence".
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2023, 05:35:03 PMViolence in everyday behaviour, violence against the past that is emptied of all substance, violence against the future, for the colonial regime presents itself as necessarily eternal. We see, therefore, that the colonized people, caught in a web of a three-dimensional violence, a meeting point of multiple, diverse, repeated, cumulative violences, are soon logically confronted by the problem of ending the colonial regime by any means necessary. —Frantz Fanon, Alienation and Freedom: part 3, chapter 22, "Why we use violence".
Some believe that, yes.
It's also useful however to remember the successful efforts of activists such as Gandhi, Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King who all preached non-violence.
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2023, 05:38:08 PMQuote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2023, 05:35:03 PMViolence in everyday behaviour, violence against the past that is emptied of all substance, violence against the future, for the colonial regime presents itself as necessarily eternal. We see, therefore, that the colonized people, caught in a web of a three-dimensional violence, a meeting point of multiple, diverse, repeated, cumulative violences, are soon logically confronted by the problem of ending the colonial regime by any means necessary. —Frantz Fanon, Alienation and Freedom: part 3, chapter 22, "Why we use violence".
Some believe that, yes.
It's also useful however to remember the successful efforts of activists such as Gandhi, Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King who all preached non-violence.
"By any means necessary" has become something of a slogan among the pro-Palestinian crowd. Rape is apparently one of these means deemed necessary. And who are we Westerners, who sit in our comfy homes, to tell the Palestinians how to fight for their own liberation?
(https://i.imgur.com/D0KoRXp.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/rqB2bds.jpg)
QuoteJust the kind of stuff viper / josq defend:
Yeah... If there's one political position which is pro rape you couldn't be more wrong than to point at the left.
The far right now... They do tend to be pretty rapey.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2023, 05:26:14 PMQuote from: Josquius on December 04, 2023, 03:10:16 PMIf you want Muslims to step away from ultra conservatism and all it's attached shit then screaming bloody murder at them and putting them into a siege mentality Is not a smart approach
Would this apply Christian conservatives as well?
This smells like an attempted gotcha?
Pretty misplaced.
It generally applies there too. Just mindlessly attacking people is a shit way to get them to change their mind. More opportunities for people from impoverished Christian communities would also be a very good thing.
Though it should be noted things are a bit different with Muslims as they're a minority and it's representatives of the empowered majority throwing the hate their way.
With Christians it's usually the majority acting within their own group so the damage and push back isn't so strong. Though attempting to create a "us" vs the "liberal metropolitan elite" division is certainly a prime tactic some use to try to wedge this open.
Things don't work according to neat and simple one size fits all rules as conservatives believe.
Squeeze, yet another example of the alien workings of your mind.
You've repeated a few times this strange dichotomy between "mindlessly attacking" and "creating more opportunities." What exactly does one have to do with the other? Publicly criticizing Islam doesn't deny anyone an opportunity. They can still pursue education, get jobs, live where they want to.
If you're going to force a dichotomy, it would seem the natural ones are between mindlessly attacking and total acceptance (you have your own customs about stoning gays) and between denial of opportunity and creation of opportunity.
BTW, have you guys heard about the new Israeli collateral damage mitigation plan? They've divided Gaza into map grids and are warning civilians which individual map grids to evacuate.
Heard on NPR yesterday.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 03, 2023, 01:49:56 PMQuote from: viper37 on December 03, 2023, 12:16:57 PMOvB says he hates all Muslism and Palestinians should be deported from Israel to make room fro the Jewish population.
I never said this--and this is where I write you off. This is at least the 2nd time you blatantly lied in this thread.
I now assume the following about you:
1. You literally hate Jews, and are an antisemitic scumbag
2. You are happy about the 10/7 attack, probably gleefully laughing to reports of Israeli women being raped and murdered and babies being killed
3. You are a monstrous genocidal piece of shit who wants to see all the Jews in Israel in Muslim death camps
1) if it were true, I'd be unable to have a civil conversation with Minsk or Malthus here over the years.
2) you sure like your projections.
3) again with the projections. You should see someone about it. Maybe Raz can help you.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2023, 08:03:19 PMBTW, have you guys heard about the new Israeli collateral damage mitigation plan? They've divided Gaza into map grids and are warning civilians which individual map grids to evacuate.
Heard on NPR yesterday.
Yes, it's easier to destroy everything in a grid pattern than with carpet bombing. Less chances of having the odd building standing tall.
Makes a large crowd easier to control too.
They still won't be allowed back in Gaza though. That's gone. Israel is still trying to move the population elsewhere, despite the US warnings, and disguise it as a voluntary departure.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2023, 08:01:42 PMSqueeze, yet another example of the alien workings of your mind.
You've repeated a few times this strange dichotomy between "mindlessly attacking" and "creating more opportunities." What exactly does one have to do with the other? Publicly criticizing Islam doesn't deny anyone an opportunity. They can still pursue education, get jobs, live where they want to.
If you're going to force a dichotomy, it would seem the natural ones are between mindlessly attacking and total acceptance (you have your own customs about stoning gays) and between denial of opportunity and creation of opportunity.
All Muslims are rapists. Just like Blacks and Mexicans, they crave white women.
Islam promotes violence and rapes.
Jews are attracted to power and money.
Judaism promotes slavery.
All of these statements are false. 2 of them target the people directly and have caused violence in the past.
2 others attack the Faith by twisting their scriptures. I'd say it's hate speech designed to stymatize the people, not cticize the religion.
Telling people to keep their religion at home is a criticism of their Faith. Mocking Donald Trump as a figure of "second Jesus " is criticism
Lamenting that the Catholic Church has been slow to punish pedophile priests and abusive religious communities is a criticism.
But none of these expose Christians to hatred. The Church is still full for special events in my home and half full on Sundays. No cops, no security guards.
Can't say the same for Jewish schools across Canada currently, sadly.
A few Mosques have been vandalized too, and some Arab people were attacked in TO.
I never thought it'd reached that level of intensity over here.
Quote from: Josquius on December 04, 2023, 07:42:30 PMThis smells like an attempted Gotcha
It's Raz, you know. if you try to fight against radicalizatiom in your own country and prevent your youths from joining ISIS, you're racist and intolerant because you don't let Muslims practice their Faith.
If you don't approve of the Siegebreakers of Israel, just like for Otto, you're a vicious Hater who want them all killed.
I think Otto and Raz would make perfect recruits for the Russian government. they had lots of openings lately, due to malfunctionning windows. you'd be in your natural element, surrounded by fascist and traitors who can't understand why you need their lands.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2023, 08:03:19 PMBTW, have you guys heard about the new Israeli collateral damage mitigation plan? They've divided Gaza into map grids and are warning civilians which individual map grids to evacuate.
Heard on NPR yesterday.
Yeah, though apparently the grids change frequently
Quote from: viper37 on December 04, 2023, 11:55:11 PM1) if it were true, I'd be unable to have a civil conversation with Minsk or Malthus here over the years.
"I'm not racist, I have several black friends."
Quote2) you sure like your projections.
And you appear to enjoy willfully lying about what other people have said, in what can only now be categorized as a campaign of deliberate dishonesty undertaken in support of Hamas.
I confess, it's not clear to me whether Nethanyahu is actually trying to drive the Palestinians out of Gaza or not.
Quote from: Jacob on December 05, 2023, 11:27:14 AMI confess, it's not clear to me whether Nethanyahu is actually trying to drive the Palestinians out of Gaza or not.
My guess is that Nethanyahu's main/only priority is Nethanyahu
Quote from: Gups on December 05, 2023, 12:28:10 PMQuote from: Jacob on December 05, 2023, 11:27:14 AMI confess, it's not clear to me whether Nethanyahu is actually trying to drive the Palestinians out of Gaza or not.
My guess is that Nethanyahu's main/only priority is Nethanyahu
No doubt.
At which point the question becomes whether Nethanyahu thinks attempting to drive the Palestinians out of Gaza serves his interests.
Quote from: Jacob on December 05, 2023, 01:10:21 PMQuote from: Gups on December 05, 2023, 12:28:10 PMQuote from: Jacob on December 05, 2023, 11:27:14 AMI confess, it's not clear to me whether Nethanyahu is actually trying to drive the Palestinians out of Gaza or not.
My guess is that Nethanyahu's main/only priority is Nethanyahu
No doubt.
At which point the question becomes whether Nethanyahu thinks attempting to drive the Palestinians out of Gaza serves his interests.
It serves the interests of the extreme right that he had to turn to return to power. That is what matters now.
It wouldn't overly surprise me if they wanted to do that, however they sure don't seem to be serious about it. Do we have a recorded case in history of 2 million people relocated? Maybe post 1945 aggregate numbers exceed that but that was organised between states willing to take the refugees AND it was organised openly.
They would have to actually kill most of that 2 million to make them force themselves through thr Egyptian border and they won't do that because of public opinion. Although I guess if they did start doing that it would be tough for lefties and Muslims in the developed world to raise the (then rightful) shilling above their current genocide claims. So maybe the Israeli far right wants to use the "crying wolf" effect?
Quote from: Tamas on December 05, 2023, 02:04:31 PMIt wouldn't overly surprise me if they wanted to do that, however they sure don't seem to be serious about it. Do we have a recorded case in history of 2 million people relocated? Maybe post 1945 aggregate numbers exceed that but that was organised between states willing to take the refugees AND it was organised openly.
So during and after WWII I am seeing reports of up to 20 million people being forcibly relocated. I think that includes Jews who were both relocated and then killed, but not exclusive just to them.
Approximately 16 million people were forcibly transfered during Indian partition.
Roughly 1.5 million greeks and turks were relocated after the formation of the Turkish republic.
So yes - while these are not good examples, and it isn't something Israel should try to do, there are precedents.
@Tamas - I don't know.
I agree that there'd be more directly effective ways to go about it, if Israel didn't care about the optics and the political consequences of being more directly effective.
On the other hand, I'm not so convinced of Nethanyahu's moral fibre and the priorities of the current Israeli government that I'll say with confidence that they're not trying to engineer a situation in which many / most / practially all Palestinians are removed from Gaza and sets the path for the strip to be integrated into Israel proper over the next few decades.
When I say I don't know, it's not a rhetorical device to argue a specific point of view. It's a genuine uncertainty. I'm not sure whether Nethanyahu's government is attempting to ethnically cleanse Gaza and this is what they reckon is the best way they can move in that direction, or whether they have no such intention.
I don't see any meaningful evidence IDF strategy is designed to get Gazans to evacuate the strip.
The far right Likud coalition partners, and frankly maybe the entire political leadership of the Arab Middle East, would probably prefer Gazans become Egypt's problem. But there is no real way to do that since Egypt is almost certainly willing to use lethal force to stop any large scale migration.
It's something that is desired by some but not feasible and I see no evidence it is being attempted.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 05, 2023, 02:25:48 PMI don't see any meaningful evidence IDF strategy is designed to get Gazans to evacuate the strip.
The far right Likid coalition partners, and frankly maybe the entire political leadership of the Arab Middle East, would probably prefer Gazans become Egypt's problem. But there is no real way to do that since Egypt is almost certainly willing to use lethal force to stop any large scale migration.
It's something that is desired by some but not feasible and I see no evidence it is being attempted.
Fair enough.
If in, say, 6 months it turns out that most Palestinians have been relocated away from the Gaza Strip will that make you reassess anything in your position on Israel and/ or the current conflict?
EDIT: Same question for anyone else in the thread, if you're interested in answering.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 05, 2023, 01:26:32 PMIt serves the interests of the extreme right that he had to turn to return to power. That is what matters now.
I agree.
I've said before but I don't think it's accidental that Sisi and Biden are repeatedly publicly saying they're opposed to that. It's because that's what they're hearing either as a request or as a risk.
I think what we're seeing is exactly because there's an Israeli leadership that is unable to do what it wants because of those international constraints, and unable to think of anything else to do.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 05, 2023, 03:26:49 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on December 05, 2023, 01:26:32 PMIt serves the interests of the extreme right that he had to turn to return to power. That is what matters now.
I agree.
I've said before but I don't think it's accidental that Sisi and Biden are repeatedly publicly saying they're opposed to that. It's because that's what they're hearing either as a request or as a risk.
I think what we're seeing is exactly because there's an Israeli leadership that is unable to do what it wants because of those international constraints, and unable to think of anything else to do.
I do think Bibi is a hostage to fortune right now between those two forces thanks to the current war rather than master of his own destiny. Not that I'm feeling sorry for him because of it, as he's largely responsible for the situation he is in now.
Quote from: Jacob on December 05, 2023, 02:27:28 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 05, 2023, 02:25:48 PMI don't see any meaningful evidence IDF strategy is designed to get Gazans to evacuate the strip.
The far right Likid coalition partners, and frankly maybe the entire political leadership of the Arab Middle East, would probably prefer Gazans become Egypt's problem. But there is no real way to do that since Egypt is almost certainly willing to use lethal force to stop any large scale migration.
It's something that is desired by some but not feasible and I see no evidence it is being attempted.
Fair enough.
If in, say, 6 months it turns out that most Palestinians have been relocated away from the Gaza Strip will that make you reassess anything in your position on Israel and/ or the current conflict?
EDIT: Same question for anyone else in the thread, if you're interested in answering.
That probably means that Egypt & Jordan are finally taking some responsibility in this conflict. A net positive, imo.
Quote from: Jacob on December 05, 2023, 02:27:28 PMIf in, say, 6 months it turns out that most Palestinians have been relocated away from the Gaza Strip will that make you reassess anything in your position on Israel and/ or the current conflict?
It would make me reassess my understanding of factual reality.
I need to "see your homework" at this point. Where do you envision them being relocated? By what means?
Like the only practical option is Egypt, and Egypt has a pretty big army, they aren't going to let them in without a war. How is Israel going to effect this?
The US has vetoed a Security Council resolution calling for a cease fire. Britain abstained.
Quote from: Jacob on December 05, 2023, 11:27:14 AMI confess, it's not clear to me whether Nethanyahu is actually trying to drive the Palestinians out of Gaza or not.
They've made it public quite a few times after their plans was leaked. It's really not coincidental the US is raising the tone calling for Israel to do more to protect civilians and not to occupy Gaza.
Also, Netanyahu has said Israel will occupy Gaza after the war - sorry, it will have security control (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67345430), while also saying the PA can not return to Gaza. (https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/netanyahu-suggests-israel-to-oppose-palestinian-authoritys-return-to-gaza-after-war/)
No PA, Israel with full security control and there is no such thing as a right of return for people who were forced to leave. Something OvB feels is moronic anyway.
So, where does that leave the Palestinians that have left? Cornered in one tiny part of the Gaza strip living in tents until something else is built by the UN, or wherever they can emigrate, as indicated multiple times by multiple israeli cabinet ministers.
Anyone who thinks Palestinians are going back to Gaza as normal is delusional. Israel has zero interests in having Palestinians occupying any kind of contiguous territory, they prefered Hamas ruling in Gaza rather than risking Palestinian secular nationalism.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2023, 11:00:06 AMThe US has vetoed a Security Council resolution calling for a cease fire. Britain abstained.
Here is the plan: use Israel to defeat Hamas, put the PLA in charge and then send in an Arab keague peacekeeping force to keep Gaza and Israel separated.
Obviously I love this plan but I am highly skeptical we can pull it off. Probably just should have abstained with the UK.
I don't think the PLA is interesting in being Israel's lackey's in Gaza. Any peacekeeping force has two options. Cooperate with Palestinian terrorists or get suicide-bombed. At best it would be like UNIFIL, that is useless.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 09, 2023, 09:11:59 PMI don't think the PLA is interesting in being Israel's lackey's in Gaza. Any peacekeeping force has two options. Cooperate with Palestinian terrorists or get suicide-bombed. At best it would be like UNIFIL, that is useless.
Exactly. Theoretically a PLA controlled Gaza with an Arab league led peacekeeping force would be great. And we could have had that in 2006. But I am skeptical we can make that happen.
We are sticking our necks out again for Israel and I don't like it.
Heard on PBS that Bibi is absolutely opposed to the PA running Gaza. And of course the PA has said they will do it only if something is done about two state.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2023, 10:58:26 PMHeard on PBS that Bibi is absolutely opposed to the PA running Gaza. And of course the PA has said they will do it only if something is done about two state.
Awesome. We are sticking our neck out for them and we don't even have their support.
It's almost like Bibi fucking wants Hamas in control of Gaza.
My understanding is that Nethanyahu's government supported Hamas in Hamas' fight with the Palestinian Authority.
Quote from: Jacob on December 10, 2023, 01:09:06 AMMy understanding is that Nethanyahu's government supported Hamas in Hamas' fight with the Palestinian Authority.
Source?
Somewhere in this thread, I'm pretty sure. But I'll fire up the google machine and see if I can find something more persuasive.
Oh yeah, I read this article in the Times of Israel back when it was published on October 8th:
For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it's blown up in our faces (https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/)
Here's a CBC article from Oct 28th, that itself includes a number of links to other sources:
How Netanyahu's Hamas policy came back to haunt him — and Israel -
The Israeli leader and Hamas are deadly enemies — and allies in opposing a 2-state solution (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/netanyahu-israel-gaza-hamas-1.7010035)
Here's a Politico piece in which Nethanyahu dismisses the allegations, but also with a number of people making those allegations:
Netanyahu: Don't accuse me of boosting Hamas with Qatari money (https://www.politico.eu/article/benjamin-netanyahu-hamas-qatar-money-war-israel-gaza-palestine/)
From the last article:
QuoteFormer Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is a leading example of a politician who takes that version of events with a pinch of salt. "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas," he previously told POLITICO. "Gaza was on the brink of collapse because they had no resources, they had no money, and the PA refused to give Hamas any money. Bibi saved them. Bibi made a deal with Qatar and they started to move millions and millions of dollars to Gaza."
Most incriminatingly, Netanyahu himself said in 2019 at a Likud party conference: "Anyone who wants to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state needs to support strengthening Hamas."
Bibi needs to go as badly as Hamas does.
Quote from: Jacob on December 10, 2023, 01:30:45 AMOh yeah, I read this article in the Times of Israel back when it was published on October 8th: For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it's blown up in our faces (https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/)
Here's a CBC article from Oct 28th, that itself includes a number of links to other sources: How Netanyahu's Hamas policy came back to haunt him — and Israel - The Israeli leader and Hamas are deadly enemies — and allies in opposing a 2-state solution (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/netanyahu-israel-gaza-hamas-1.7010035)
Here's a Politico piece in which Nethanyahu dismisses the allegations, but also with a number of people making those allegations: Netanyahu: Don't accuse me of boosting Hamas with Qatari money (https://www.politico.eu/article/benjamin-netanyahu-hamas-qatar-money-war-israel-gaza-palestine/)
From the last article:QuoteFormer Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is a leading example of a politician who takes that version of events with a pinch of salt. "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas," he previously told POLITICO. "Gaza was on the brink of collapse because they had no resources, they had no money, and the PA refused to give Hamas any money. Bibi saved them. Bibi made a deal with Qatar and they started to move millions and millions of dollars to Gaza."
Most incriminatingly, Netanyahu himself said in 2019 at a Likud party conference: "Anyone who wants to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state needs to support strengthening Hamas."
Most of this stretches the definition of "boost", Israel chose not to militarily intervene in the Hamas-Fatah civil war, and didn't take extreme actions to prevent UN money and other aid money (which often was coming from Qatar) to the Gaza Strip. Bibi also expressed satisfaction that Hamas control of Gaza effectively kept Palestine divided and unable to effectively lobby for statehood.
Trying to indicate that Netanyahu "made this mess", which is what this line of thinking regularly implies, is a bigger stretch. To stop this mess Israel would have needed to be willing to militarily re-invade Gaza back in 2008 when the Hamas-Fatah conflict broke out, to use force to re-establish PA control of Gaza. That in itself would have been a hugely controversial act--possibly as controversial and unpopular with the left and the Arab world as the current war is. Also factual evidence shows the PA could not have maintained control of Gaza by itself, this would have meant essentially IDF resuming permanent security control inside the strip, in a situation similar to the West Bank. Again, a very controversial and unpopular scenario that would have not been trivial to do in terms of political and diplomatic capital.
To stop Hamas from getting any money at all or any supplies (much of which it has used to arm and fortify), would have required a blockade more serious than the one that has existed since 2008 and which itself was massively controversial among the left, the Arab world, and various anti-Israel / pro-Palestine factions powerful throughout Europe etc.
Dismissing the fairly tenuous claim of Israel "boosting Hamas", a more apt linkage to the current regime and culpability for the massacres would instead be that the Likud coalition had long ignored Gaza border security in favor of helping extremist settlers in the West Bank and in pushing Israeli claims in East Jerusalem. Two things that were not strictly necessary for Israeli security and largely were just being done to advance maximalist / extremist annexationist positions in those areas. The systemic defunding and draw down of personnel from the Gaza border in favor of untested "technological" solutions was a terrible mistake and Likud's coalition was directly involved in those decisions--far more culpable for the situation right now through this than the "not wiping Hamas off the face of the earth 15 years ago when it would have been a massive diplomatic crisis to try and do so."
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 10, 2023, 01:31:19 PMQuote from: Jacob on December 10, 2023, 01:30:45 AMOh yeah, I read this article in the Times of Israel back when it was published on October 8th: For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it's blown up in our faces (https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/)
Here's a CBC article from Oct 28th, that itself includes a number of links to other sources: How Netanyahu's Hamas policy came back to haunt him — and Israel - The Israeli leader and Hamas are deadly enemies — and allies in opposing a 2-state solution (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/netanyahu-israel-gaza-hamas-1.7010035)
Here's a Politico piece in which Nethanyahu dismisses the allegations, but also with a number of people making those allegations: Netanyahu: Don't accuse me of boosting Hamas with Qatari money (https://www.politico.eu/article/benjamin-netanyahu-hamas-qatar-money-war-israel-gaza-palestine/)
From the last article:
QuoteFormer Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is a leading example of a politician who takes that version of events with a pinch of salt. "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas," he previously told POLITICO. "Gaza was on the brink of collapse because they had no resources, they had no money, and the PA refused to give Hamas any money. Bibi saved them. Bibi made a deal with Qatar and they started to move millions and millions of dollars to Gaza."
Most incriminatingly, Netanyahu himself said in 2019 at a Likud party conference: "Anyone who wants to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state needs to support strengthening Hamas."
Most of this stretches the definition of "boost", Israel chose not to militarily intervene in the Hamas-Fatah civil war, and didn't take extreme actions to prevent UN money and other aid money (which often was coming from Qatar) to the Gaza Strip. Bibi also expressed satisfaction that Hamas control of Gaza effectively kept Palestine divided and unable to effectively lobby for statehood.
Trying to indicate that Netanyahu "made this mess", which is what this line of thinking regularly implies, is a bigger stretch. To stop this mess Israel would have needed to be willing to militarily re-invade Gaza back in 2008 when the Hamas-Fatah conflict broke out, to use force to re-establish PA control of Gaza. That in itself would have been a hugely controversial act--possibly as controversial and unpopular with the left and the Arab world as the current war is. Also factual evidence shows the PA could not have maintained control of Gaza by itself, this would have meant essentially IDF resuming permanent security control inside the strip, in a situation similar to the West Bank. Again, a very controversial and unpopular scenario that would have not been trivial to do in terms of political and diplomatic capital.
To stop Hamas from getting any money at all or any supplies (much of which it has used to arm and fortify), would have required a blockade more serious than the one that has existed since 2008 and which itself was massively controversial among the left, the Arab world, and various anti-Israel / pro-Palestine factions powerful throughout Europe etc.
Dismissing the fairly tenuous claim of Israel "boosting Hamas", a more apt linkage to the current regime and culpability for the massacres would instead be that the Likud coalition had long ignored Gaza border security in favor of helping extremist settlers in the West Bank and in pushing Israeli claims in East Jerusalem. Two things that were not strictly necessary for Israeli security and largely were just being done to advance maximalist / extremist annexationist positions in those areas. The systemic defunding and draw down of personnel from the Gaza border in favor of untested "technological" solutions was a terrible mistake and Likud's coalition was directly involved in those decisions--far more culpable for the situation right now through this than the "not wiping Hamas off the face of the earth 15 years ago when it would have been a massive diplomatic crisis to try and do so."
When the Islamic Brotherhood created Hamas, Israel imprisoned their leaders and then let him go because he sworn he would only attack the PLO and not Israel. Then they gave them shitload of money to fund Hamas.
On top of what is already written, we have these gems that I already posted:
https://theintercept.com/2023/10/14/hamas-israel-palestinian-authority/
Quote"The Palestinian Authority is a burden, and Hamas is an asset," Smotrich said at the time. "It's a terrorist organization, no one will recognize it, no one will give it status at the [International Criminal Court], no one will let it put forth a resolution at the U.N. Security Council."
You refuse to admit the evidence. The Likud propped up Hamas because it was convenient, and it wasn't the first Isreali government to pick religious fundies over secular nationalism because it felt it was the lesser of two evils. They chose war over peace with two states coexisting peacefully.
The Likud is as much responsible for the deaths of this latest attacks as Hamas is. Hamas was the executant, the Likud coalition was the enabler.
You call to destroy the Palestinian people and what's left of their state because somehown they support terrorism should find echo in the destitution of this government if your real concern if the safety of the Israeli citizens.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 10, 2023, 01:53:22 AMBibi needs to go as badly as Hamas does.
He has been nothing but an embarrassing problem for the United States since 1995. And, you know, currently threatening to turn Israel into Russia both domestically and internationally. He wants so badly to be Putin.
Quote from: viper37 on December 10, 2023, 09:34:05 PMYou refuse to admit the evidence. The Likud propped up Hamas because it was convenient, and it wasn't the first Isreali government to pick religious fundies over secular nationalism because it felt it was the lesser of two evils. They chose war over peace with two states coexisting peacefully.
Continually undermining and humiliating the United States along the way I might add. I am so tired of them just taking us for granted and shitting all over our efforts.
Netanyahu is a lot like Trump, though. Nothing really sticks to him. I mean the guy had all sorts of corruption charges levied against him, and he still wins. (yes, I know he only wins in Israel's multi-party system). Much as how most Israelis know Bibi is a lot to blame for the current situation (lots of evidence that he was warned countless times about this attack, starting a year ago, but chose to do nothing), in the end he will prevail as he always does. Like Trump.
Quote from: viper37 on December 10, 2023, 09:34:05 PMWhen the Islamic Brotherhood created Hamas, Israel imprisoned their leaders and then let him go because he sworn he would only attack the PLO and not Israel. Then they gave them shitload of money to fund Hamas.
This was and has already been discussed extensively in this thread. Yes, Israel (not Netanyahu, who wasn't in government in the 1980s) gave some funding to Hamas before they knew it was a terror group. They did release the quadriplegic leader of Hamas after a year in jail--but in the 80s and 90s Israel regularly released imprisoned Palestinians for any number of political reasons. Israel did not directly fund Hamas from state funds after they made the determination Hamas was a violent terror group.
Further, the growth of Hamas was directly linked to a larger movement throughout the Arab world towards Islamic militancy and away from secular Arab nationalism. Israel neither created, nor could have trivially controlled, such a movement. Trying to link Israeli policies in regards to Hamas to the present war is just very, very tortured.
Hamas became what it is today because of a generation of funding from Iran and Qatar. Before that it was one of any number of small Islamic militant groups in the area. The only way Israel could have stopped Hamas from becoming what it is today would have been to maintain their occupation of Gaza or to have imposed an even stricter blockade than they actually did--which by the way, you and most other antisemitic leftists have consistently called that blockade a grave violation of international law, so let's not pretend you would have been okay with an even stricter one.
QuoteOn top of what is already written, we have these gems that I already posted:
https://theintercept.com/2023/10/14/hamas-israel-palestinian-authority/
Quote"The Palestinian Authority is a burden, and Hamas is an asset," Smotrich said at the time. "It's a terrorist organization, no one will recognize it, no one will give it status at the [International Criminal Court], no one will let it put forth a resolution at the U.N. Security Council."
You refuse to admit the evidence. The Likud propped up Hamas because it was convenient, and it wasn't the first Isreali government to pick religious fundies over secular nationalism because it felt it was the lesser of two evils. They chose war over peace with two states coexisting peacefully.
The Likud is as much responsible for the deaths of this latest attacks as Hamas is. Hamas was the executant, the Likud coalition was the enabler.
This has also already been addressed--in fact I addressed it in the very post you're responding to--yes, Likud found Hamas convenient. That isn't the same thing as "Likud is responsible for Hamas." Likud thinking (incorrectly it turns out) that Hamas control of Gaza was to its strategic benefit doesn't make Likud or Israel "responsible" for what Hamas does, nor does it constitute "propping up" Hamas.
As you have done time and time again in this thread you are lying, and lying badly.
Largely in an attempt to advocate for Hamas and against Jews. I continue to label you an antisemite, and now one that appears to say the Israeli civilians deserved to get raped and murdered on Oct 7th because a far right Israeli felt like Hamas control of Gaza was strategically beneficial to their aims.
This ignores the simple reality that whatever the Israelis "felt" about Hamas, they didn't create Hamas or prop it up--they didn't turn Hamas into the militant force it is today. Lots of Iranian and Qatari money did that, and the only way Israel could have stopped it would have been military intervention in the strip--the very thing you are so against right now.
Amazing Otto continues to scream about others being liars whilst lying blatantly that others are pro-rape anti-semites.
FYI Israel absolutely could have greatly impeded the flow of money to Hamas. Beware of falling into a Nirvana Fallacy where even a single penny getting through to Hamas constitutes a failure.
Quote from: Josquius on December 11, 2023, 11:14:15 AMAmazing Otto continues to scream about others being liars whilst lying blatantly that others are pro-rape anti-semites.
FYI Israel absolutely could have greatly impeded the flow of money to Hamas. Beware of falling into a Nirvana Fallacy where even a single penny getting through to Hamas constitutes a failure.
Israel did impede the flow of money to Hamas, it just didn't completely shut it off--and it could not have easily done so for international diplomatic / political reasons.
QuoteSome, however, do express open support for Hamas' actions. Hatem Teirelbar knows which side he's on. A senior at the University of Colorado Denver, the Egyptian national joined pro-Palestinian protesters last month outside a Global Conference for Israel held by a U.S. Zionist group that was planned before Oct.
An organizer for the Students for a Democratic Society in Denver, Mr. Teirelbar expressed support for the Oct. 7 attack on Israeli Jews.
This disgusting Islamic terrorist--who is a guest in this country, not here with any permanent right of abode, needs to be deported post haste.
It's possible to say at the same time that Likud did not "cause" Hamas to arise to gain influence and yet also say that its tactics aided Hamas in its rise to power. And I agree that Bibi's position against PA administration in Gaza is a doubling down of that obviously failed policy.
Bibi is the master of political tactics but in the service of nothing. Under his leadership, Israel has sought to undermine the possibility of a two-state solution at every turn. At the same time, they will not annex the occupied territories because that would mean the Lebanonization of Israel. Which means the real policy is permanent occupation, an approach that provides grist to the mill of those who call Israel an apartheid state. And although that slur is technically inaccurate, the reality that Israel now rules over a permanent caste of de facto second class citizens is undeniable.
The ostensible justification for this policy is "security," but October 7 has buried that canard for good. Likud deluded Israel into thinking that the formula of fences + Iron Dome + high tech surveillance could secure Israel indefinitely from Palestinian aggression so long as the Palestinians were denied the resources of a state polity. One would have thought this century's experience would have taught everyone the damage that could be caused by non-state actors enjoying state level support or connivance. Israel believed that their technology and security expertise made them an exception. Wishful thinking -- Hamas harmed Israel more grievously than the most powerful of Arab states ever did.
The real justification has never been security but political tactics. Bibi has managed the fantastic balancing act of remaining on top of Israel's notorious fractious political system by mastering the intricacies of coalition building - melding together incongruent allies like secular hard-line militants and ultra-orthodox rebbes seeking their students exemption from military service. At the core of his base is the settler lobby - the one group with a powerful and permanent interest in ensuring that no peace ever exists between Israel and Palestinians. The consequence is a malign feedback loop, where Likud's pro-settler policy ensures settler support for Bibi while at the same time augmenting the ranks of the settlers and thus increasing their political clout.
That presents a problem for the United States, because while the US has an interest in supporting Israel in the abstract, and concretely in suppressing Hamas now, it has no interest in furthering the destabilizing Israeli non-policy policy in the territories.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 13, 2023, 08:59:51 AMIt's possible to say at the same time that Likud did not "cause" Hamas to arise to gain influence and yet also say that its tactics aided Hamas in its rise to power. And I agree that Bibi's position against PA administration in Gaza is a doubling down of that obviously failed policy.
I don't disagree with this--but it should be noted there is a subtle, but important, difference from the broad view that Israeli policy feeds Palestinian resistance and the "Axis of Resistance" view being promoted by its two representatives here (Josq and Viper) that Netanyahu somehow shat Hamas out of his ass decades before he was premier, and is now being justly punished for it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 13, 2023, 08:59:51 AMThe consequence is a malign feedback loop, where Likud's pro-settler policy ensures settler support for Bibi while at the same time augmenting the ranks of the settlers and thus increasing their political clout.
I mostly agree with the rest of your post--but I would add, part of the reason Netanyahu has had the "space" to build these coalitions is the political collapse of the Israeli left and center left. After the early 2000s intifada and the broad view that Oslo was a mistake, it became very difficult for non-rightists to win enough votes in elections to form a government in Israel; and at its core that political situation has to change for the feedback loop you mentioned to have a chance of being interrupted.
Quote from: Valmy on December 09, 2023, 11:59:08 PMIt's almost like Bibi fucking wants Hamas in control of Gaza.
I think he did. If you want to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state the best way to do it is to keep the Palestinians divided and to deprecate the effectiveness of the two state Palestinians and build up the radicals. As Smotrich put it - if your goal is one Israeli state, then the PA are a liability and Hamas are an asset. I think this has been demonstrated in the ongoing humiliation of the PA in the West Bank v the funding and work visas provided to Hamas in Gaza through back channel talks with Qatar and Egypt, which always shoot up when Netanyahu is in office (and which was, ultimately, a vector for the attacks).
For that strategy to work there are two conditions though. One is that the conflict with Palestinians keeps at a low enough level to not cause issues for Israel's western allies support, or to get in the way of closer economic and eventually military integration with Arab states in regional politics against Iran. The other is that it only works if Hamas do not represent a real threat - if they are nullified and can just ineffectively fire a few rockets (which Iron Dome can intercept).
7 October ended those two conditions that are necessary for Netanyahu's strategy to work (at least for now). It's why I think they do want to ethnically cleanse/population transfer Gaza because that allows them to meet their goal of no Palestinian state, ongoing settlements etc but are constrained by the US and Egypt and Arab states generally. The only alternative is some form of non-Hamas Palestinian authority capable of governing Gaza, but that will undermine the political obective of the Likud right and their coalition partners. Building that alternative up is impossible with a maximalist settlement policy.
There has been a long-term rightward drift in Israeli politics dating back to the 70s. Bibi himself has shifted rightward to accommodate ever more extremist coalition allies and the effective opposition is now Gantz who is a center-right figure. The Israeli left has virtually no political representation anymore.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 11, 2023, 10:22:19 AMThis ignores the simple reality that whatever the Israelis "felt" about Hamas, they didn't create Hamas or prop it up--they didn't turn Hamas into the militant force it is today. Lots of Iranian and Qatari money did that, and the only way Israel could have stopped it would have been military intervention in the strip--the very thing you are so against right now.
You conveniently ignore the inconvenient truth because it suits you. Who allowed the Qatari money into Gaza? Who allowed the Palestinians people to get an unprecedented number of work permits and why?
Why was they main person bringing that money was stopped and then allowed to go into Gaza with that money?
Keep asking the questions and maybe you'll find the answer some day. Until you decide to remove that blindfold of yours, I don't think it's useful to keep discussing with you.
:lol: The things thing that Bibi did to "help" Hamas are what is critics have been demanding the Israeli government do for 15 years. Allow more stuff into Gaza and let Gazans come into Israel.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/turkish-mp-dies-after-suffering-heart-attack-parliament-2023-12-14/
QuoteAn opposition Turkish lawmaker died on Thursday, two days after suffering a heart attack and collapsing in front of parliament as he finished a speech criticising the government's policy toward Israel.
He had been criticising President Tayyip Erdogan's ruling AK Party (AKP) over Turkey's ongoing trade with Israel despite the war in Gaza, and despite the government's sharp rhetorical criticism of Israel's military bombardment.
This should make religious people re-evaluate their choice of deity. :P
Quote from: Tamas on December 14, 2023, 06:51:05 AMhttps://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/turkish-mp-dies-after-suffering-heart-attack-parliament-2023-12-14/
QuoteAn opposition Turkish lawmaker died on Thursday, two days after suffering a heart attack and collapsing in front of parliament as he finished a speech criticising the government's policy toward Israel.
He had been criticising President Tayyip Erdogan's ruling AK Party (AKP) over Turkey's ongoing trade with Israel despite the war in Gaza, and despite the government's sharp rhetorical criticism of Israel's military bombardment.
This should make religious people re-evaluate their choice of deity. :P
Allah struck him down. Maybe you should consider converting to Islam :ph34r:
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2023, 07:03:21 AMQuote from: Tamas on December 14, 2023, 06:51:05 AMhttps://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/turkish-mp-dies-after-suffering-heart-attack-parliament-2023-12-14/
QuoteAn opposition Turkish lawmaker died on Thursday, two days after suffering a heart attack and collapsing in front of parliament as he finished a speech criticising the government's policy toward Israel.
He had been criticising President Tayyip Erdogan's ruling AK Party (AKP) over Turkey's ongoing trade with Israel despite the war in Gaza, and despite the government's sharp rhetorical criticism of Israel's military bombardment.
This should make religious people re-evaluate their choice of deity. :P
Allah struck him down. Maybe you should consider converting to Islam :ph34r:
Quite the contrary he was invoking Allah's wrath on those too lenient with Israel. It was the Jewish god striking him down, clearly.
Quote from: Tamas on December 14, 2023, 07:08:06 AMQuote from: HVC on December 14, 2023, 07:03:21 AMQuote from: Tamas on December 14, 2023, 06:51:05 AMhttps://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/turkish-mp-dies-after-suffering-heart-attack-parliament-2023-12-14/
QuoteAn opposition Turkish lawmaker died on Thursday, two days after suffering a heart attack and collapsing in front of parliament as he finished a speech criticising the government's policy toward Israel.
He had been criticising President Tayyip Erdogan's ruling AK Party (AKP) over Turkey's ongoing trade with Israel despite the war in Gaza, and despite the government's sharp rhetorical criticism of Israel's military bombardment.
This should make religious people re-evaluate their choice of deity. :P
Allah struck him down. Maybe you should consider converting to Islam :ph34r:
Quite the contrary he was invoking Allah's wrath on those too lenient with Israel. It was the Jewish god striking him down, clearly.
Works fine both ways for HVC, our resident crypto-Moor and crypto-Jew. :P
And raised catholic. I'm a lock for heaven :goodboy:
Quote from: Tamas on December 14, 2023, 07:08:06 AMQuote from: HVC on December 14, 2023, 07:03:21 AMQuote from: Tamas on December 14, 2023, 06:51:05 AMhttps://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/turkish-mp-dies-after-suffering-heart-attack-parliament-2023-12-14/
QuoteAn opposition Turkish lawmaker died on Thursday, two days after suffering a heart attack and collapsing in front of parliament as he finished a speech criticising the government's policy toward Israel.
He had been criticising President Tayyip Erdogan's ruling AK Party (AKP) over Turkey's ongoing trade with Israel despite the war in Gaza, and despite the government's sharp rhetorical criticism of Israel's military bombardment.
This should make religious people re-evaluate their choice of deity. :P
Allah struck him down. Maybe you should consider converting to Islam :ph34r:
Quite the contrary he was invoking Allah's wrath on those too lenient with Israel. It was the Jewish god striking him down, clearly.
Clearly allah for misappropriating his wrath. Yahweh would have turned him into a pillar of salt or something.
Old Testament god was the cool god.
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2023, 07:14:15 AMAnd raised catholic. I'm a lock for heaven :goodboy:
You should await the Tribunal do Santo Ofício's verdict on you, just to be sure. :P
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2023, 07:21:09 AMQuote from: HVC on December 14, 2023, 07:14:15 AMAnd raised catholic. I'm a lock for heaven :goodboy:
You should await the Tribunal do Santo Ofício's verdict on you, just to be sure. :P
Like pombal said, if you got rid of all the convert Jews and Moores from Portugal you'd have no one left :lol:
https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-palestinians-opinion-poll-wartime-views-a0baade915619cd070b5393844bc4514
So here we go!
QuoteA wartime opinion poll among Palestinians published Wednesday shows a rise in support for Hamas, which appears to have ticked up even in the devastated Gaza Strip, and an overwhelming rejection of Western-backed President Mahmoud Abbas, with nearly 90% saying he must resign.
Ok so I have been told constantly that the 2006 election didn't mean anything and blah blah well guess what? 40%+ Palestinians love Hamas and support their vision of endless war against Israel. They don't want anything to do with Biden and our governments endless quest for a peaceful two state solution. It is never going to happen.
And hey guess what?
QuoteWashington has called for the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority, currently led by Abbas, to eventually assume control of Gaza and run both territories as a precursor to statehood. U.S. officials have said the PA must be revitalized, without letting on whether this would mean leadership changes.
And our good buddies over in Israel?
QuotePrime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who leads the most right-wing government in Israel's history, has soundly rejected any role for the PA in Gaza and insists Israel must retain open-ended security control there.
They do not support us at all in our objectives. And we are supporting them why? Israel is clearly not an ally but an enemy in achieving our goals.
Goals that neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis want.
And the Arab States we want to act as a peacekeeping force?
QuoteArab allies of the U.S. have said they'll only get involved in post-war reconstruction if there's a credible push toward a two-state solution, which is unlikely under the Netanyahu government dominated by opponents of Palestinian statehood.
With survey results indicating a further erosion of the PA's legitimacy, at a time when there's no apparent path toward restarting credible negotiations on Palestinian statehood, the default for postwar Gaza is an open-ended Israeli occupation, pollster Khalil Shikaki said.
The only reason they are even pretending to cooperate with us is because they know our position is detached from reality and will never happen.
QuoteAt the same time, 44% in the West Bank said they supported Hamas, up from just 12% in September. In Gaza, the militants enjoyed 42% support, up slightly from 38% three months ago.
Shikaki said support for the PA declined further, with nearly 60% now saying it should be dissolved. In the West Bank, Abbas' continued security coordination with Israel's military against Hamas, his bitter political rival, is widely unpopular.
Yes clearly Hamas being defeated and the PA being put in power as a foundation for a Palestinian State is a totally realistic goal. It is even further away now than it was in 2006. Clearly Hamas would win big if a new election was called.
What is Biden and Washington doing? Not only are they dangerously tilting at windmills, trying to advance a policy that has very little support in either Palestine or Israel, but we are paying a huge price for it both internationally and domestically. This unpopular move right before the 2024 election? Biden is putting the future of the United States in jeopardy for Israel and Palestine, neither of which are friends of ours.
I just do not understand why we insist on spending time and resources getting involved in conflicts where we have no friends and no support for our objectives. What are we doing?
Ukraine is right there in a fight we support and need them to be successful at. Our allies in the Far East are opposing Chinese bullshit and their interests are in line with ours. That is where we need to be spending political capital and resources.
Why support a supposed ally that is, in fact, opposed to our interests? That is opposed to our objectives? We shouldn't do anything. Israel and Palestine should have no support from us until they align with what we want, or at least we find what they want acceptable.
It just makes me so frustrated. What are we doing?
I mean, we don't generally run foreign policy based on opinion polls. Maybe this is something you're just now learning.
Israel and the PA have actually signed treaties that we helped negotiate committing themselves to the two state solution. AFAIK Israel has never formally reneged on that. Have they ideologically reneged on it? Sure. But it isn't unreasonable that the United States continues to work under the framework of agreed treaties, particularly since the two state solution represents the American foreign policy establishments "best guess" at how the situation can ultimately resolve.
That doesn't mean there may not be some better option, but if there is, none have come close to being agreed upon.
I also would argue you shouldn't put too much stock into wartime polls to begin with. I'm pretty anti-Palestinian in general, and even I think there is an exaggerated "rally around the flag effect" going on with Hamas. It is not easy to have perspective on the situation when your people are being bombed.
Valmy, purely on the US domestic front there are potential high prices to pay electorally for changing away from the idealistically-optimistic-but-supporting-Israel stance to something else.
Going all in on Israel saying "do whatever you feel is appropriate to the Palestinians, we won't hold you back" is going to come with a massive price. Conversely, breaking with Israel is going to have a different massive price. And if there are drastic outcomes from either, many will hold the government directly responsible.
Quote from: HVC on December 14, 2023, 07:24:49 AMQuote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2023, 07:21:09 AMQuote from: HVC on December 14, 2023, 07:14:15 AMAnd raised catholic. I'm a lock for heaven :goodboy:
You should await the Tribunal do Santo Ofício's verdict on you, just to be sure. :P
Like pombal said, if you got rid of all the convert Jews and Moores from Portugal you'd have no one left :lol:
Getting rid of the Moores should not be too difficult. :P
As for Pombal, well it's in the centre i.e south of the Mondego so possibly... :hmm: :P
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2023, 03:42:49 PMQuote from: HVC on December 14, 2023, 07:24:49 AMQuote from: Duque de Bragança on December 14, 2023, 07:21:09 AMQuote from: HVC on December 14, 2023, 07:14:15 AMAnd raised catholic. I'm a lock for heaven :goodboy:
You should await the Tribunal do Santo Ofício's verdict on you, just to be sure. :P
Like pombal said, if you got rid of all the convert Jews and Moores from Portugal you'd have no one left :lol:
Getting rid of the Moores should not be too difficult. :P
As for Pombal, well it's in the centre i.e south of the Mondego so possibly... :hmm: :P
I like the hat story too. Interesting guy.
for those that don't know, the lore is that the king was debating making the Jews wear yellow hats. In a meeting pombal brought three hats. When the king asked why he said it's one for himself, one for the grand inquisitor, and if you want to cover your head there's one for you too.
So the Houthi faction in Yemen have recently said they're going to enter the conflict on the side of Palestine. In the last few days they've fired missiles at a Norwegian ship and a Danish ship transitting through the Gulf of Aden.
Saw some cross flags and their first thoughts were "Jewish ships"?
Quote from: Jacob on December 14, 2023, 08:27:35 PMIn the last few days they've fired missiles at a Norwegian ship and a Danish ship transitting through the Gulf of Aden.
Are they one of those "all nations are secretly controlled by the Jews" types?
I think they have a category of "nations who support Israel" meaning "who haven't sufficiently supported Palestine" or maybe "who we think are too close to the US" which they're attacking. And I guess Norway and Denmark fit in that category.
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2023, 08:54:59 PMQuote from: Jacob on December 14, 2023, 08:27:35 PMIn the last few days they've fired missiles at a Norwegian ship and a Danish ship transitting through the Gulf of Aden.
Are they one of those "all nations are secretly controlled by the Jews" types?
They are one of those "our paymasters in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards have told us to escalate the conflict as best we can while leaving them with
plausible deniability" types.
Although I think Valmy's judgment is too harsh, he has a point. Post Sadat, the I-P conflict is where the reputations of American statesmen go to die. It is the Kobayashi Maru of international conflict resolution.
The truth is that Biden has no good options; he cannot abandon Israel for both domestic political reasons and some sound foreign policy reasons; at the same time, it is true that at the level of political strategy, the governments are working at cross-purposes.
Hamas leadership reportedly being kicked out of Qatar (probably to Algeria).
That would be the Qatar that is the UK's supplier of last resort for LNG and close energy partner of Italy, host of the World Cup, owner of European football clubs and other high end assets.
I get they've played a role in negotiating hostage releases but I can't help but feel that Qatar has not come under nearly enough pressure from the West since 7 October that we're only now reaching this point. Reality is probably because they're too important in other ways (and I get that, for example, with the UK and Italy - like the rest of Europe - on LNG the choice is Russia or x Gulf autocracy).
But I feel like there is dissonance between the West's economic policies and attitudes and its actual security and energy needs (particularly Europe because we don't produce our own energy or have our own security). It feels like it's still growing - and is, I think, a big challenge for the next set of European leaders in particular who need to be as hard-headed and realistic about this as, say, the Schmidts, de Gaulles, Wilsons of a previous age.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 16, 2023, 07:49:59 AMHamas leadership reportedly being kicked out of Qatar (probably to Algeria).
That would be the Qatar that is the UK's supplier of last resort for LNG and close energy partner of Italy, host of the World Cup, owner of European football clubs and other high end assets.
I get they've played a role in negotiating hostage releases but I can't help but feel that Qatar has not come under nearly enough pressure from the West since 7 October that we're only now reaching this point. Reality is probably because they're too important in other ways (and I get that, for example, with the UK and Italy - like the rest of Europe - on LNG the choice is Russia or x Gulf autocracy).
But I feel like there is dissonance between the West's economic policies and attitudes and its actual security and energy needs (particularly Europe because we don't produce our own energy or have our own security). It feels like it's still growing - and is, I think, a big challenge for the next set of European leaders in particular who need to be as hard-headed and realistic about this as, say, the Schmidts, de Gaulles, Wilsons of a previous age.
Although, from what I've read (in the Economist I think), Hamas is deeply divided and the "leadership" in Quatar was opposed to the 7 October outrages.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 16, 2023, 07:49:59 AMI get they've played a role in negotiating hostage releases but I can't help but feel that Qatar has not come under nearly enough pressure from the West since 7 October that we're only now reaching this point. Reality is probably because they're too important in other ways (and I get that, for example, with the UK and Italy - like the rest of Europe - on LNG the choice is Russia or x Gulf autocracy).
Maybe there was some behind the scene pressure and diplomatic talks with the US and the UK about it. Polite talks to avoid pissing them off and cutting the gaz supply to Europe, but talks at lower levels to resolve the issue nonetheless.
The IDF has killed 3 hostages. <sigh>
The hostages were carrying a white flag, speaking hebrew and they were shot. One was shot dead on sight, the other was first injured, ran into a building, spoke in Hebrew calling for help and was shot again by the IDF.
3 hostages in Gaza killed by friendly fire (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/3-hostages-in-gaza-killed-by-friendly-fire-israeli-military-says/)
QuoteThree hostages being held by Hamas in Gaza were mistakenly killed by friendly fire, the Israeli military said in a statement Friday.
During combat operations in Shejaiya, a dense neighborhood in the Gaza City area where fighting has been taking place, the Israeli military said troops "mistakenly identified three Israeli hostages as a threat." Troops fired at the three and they were killed, the Israel Defense Forces said.
On Saturday, the IDF told CBS News that the events occurred during a period of "intense combat," with Hamas militants moving around in what the official described as civilian attire, including sneakers and jeans. There were "a lot of ambushes" and "a lot of deceptions," the IDF official said.
The hostages emerged "tens of meters from one of our forces positions," the IDF official said. The hostages were not wearing shirts and were waving a white flag on a stick, but two were killed immediately, the official said. The third ran away "crying for help in Hebrew." Though the battalion commander issued a ceasefire order, there was "another burst of fire at" the third hostage, which killed him, the IDF official said.
"This was against our rules of engagement," the official said, calling the incident "very tragic."
It's not clear if the hostages had been abandoned or if they had escaped their captors, the official said. The IDF official said that there was a building within meters of where the incident took place with "markings of SOS on it." The Israeli military is investigating the building, the official said.
The Israeli military said Friday that the bodies have been returned to Israel and the identities of the three were confirmed.
Samer Talalka and Yotam Haim, who were both kidnapped from Kibbutz Kfar Aza during the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks on Israel, were identified by the IDF as two of the hostages killed. Haim, 28, recorded video of Hamas attacking the kibbutz before he was kidnapped. Later, the IDF released the name of the third hostage, Alon Shamriz, with his family's approval, after saying earlier that his family did not want it released. Officials said Shamriz, 26, was also kidnapped from Kibbutz Kfar Aza. Talalka was 22 years old.
The Israeli military said it "began reviewing the incident immediately."
"The IDF emphasizes that this is an active combat zone in which ongoing fighting over the last few days has occurred. Immediate lessons from the event have been learned, which have been passed on to all IDF troops in the field," the military's statement said. "The IDF expresses deep remorse over the tragic incident and sends the families its heartfelt condolences. Our national mission is to locate the missing and return all the hostages home."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement: "Together with the entire people of Israel, I bow my head in deep sorrow and mourn the death of three of our hostages. ... This is an unbearable tragedy and all of Israel is grieving their loss this evening."
CBS Saturday Morning reported that the incident led to protests in Israel, with families and supporters of the hostages demanding the government resume talks for another hostage swap with Hamas. Sources told CBS News on Saturday that Mossad director David Barnea met with Qatari and U.S. officials in France last night to discuss diplomacy regarding hostages, but there is no hint of a break in the brutal fighting, which has been a key demand from Hamas before any negotiations take place.
Bodies of three other hostages were recovered this week, according to previous statements from the Israeli military. The body of 28-year-old Elia Toledano was returned to Israel and positively identified, the IDF said earlier Friday. Toledano had French citizenship, French officials said, and had reportedly been attending the Supernova music festival in southern Israel when it came under attack by Hamas on Oct. 7. On Tuesday, the Israeli military said it recovered the bodies of Eden Zakaria, 27, and Ziv Dado, 36.
The Israeli government has said there are an estimated 137 hostages still being held by Hamas.
Unarmed people shirtless carrying a white flag = dangerous terrorist; we must shoot first and ask questions later.
I don't know if they've always been like that or if it's the result of years under Bibi that turned the IDF into this. They were prone stand by and let others do the killing during the war in Lebanon, but nowadays, it seems they take pleasure in shooting unarmed civilians.
And of course, anyone who dares question Israel is a racist.
While I don't care much for your hyperbole, it does raise questions about their ROE.
Quote from: Gups on December 16, 2023, 09:05:53 AMAlthough, from what I've read (in the Economist I think), Hamas is deeply divided and the "leadership" in Quatar was opposed to the 7 October outrages.
Were the October 7th attacks a bid for power from a rival faction?
If the Qatar based leadership was in fact opposed to the attacks, presumably they didn't organize them. Do we know who did, what their aims were, and what their differences are (if any) with the Qatar based leadership are (beyond the attack itself)?
Does Hamas want to keep fighting Israel or start talking peace?
https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2023/11/30/does-hamas-want-to-keep-fighting-israel-or-start-talking-peace
from The Economist
This is the article I was thinking of.
"What happens in the coming weeks and months depends mainly on how much deeper and longer Israel's offensive goes into Gaza and how much of Hamas it is able to destroy. But it also depends on high-stakes struggles within Hamas: between a radical wing in Gaza and more moderate elements in exile in Qatar and Lebanon; between those aligned closely with Iran and its "axis of resistance" and those wanting closer ties with Arab governments; and crucially over whether to implicitly recognise Israel or to keep fighting to exterminate it. Who wins these arguments will affect whether a peace deal based on a Palestinian state alongside Israel can ever materialise.
...
After Hamas unexpectedly found itself responsible for governing Gaza and shunned by some states in the region, moderate factions within the group began to push for a change in its policies. Khaled Meshal (pictured, top left), previously the head of the group's political wing in exile, had been trying to align the group with Sunni Arab states in the region and break it away from its alliance with Iran and Syria. In 2012 he moved the Hamas headquarters out of Damascus, Syria's capital, after President Bashar al-Assad had massacred Sunni rebels and violently repressed the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2017 Mr Meshal pushed through a new Hamas charter, dropping much of the previous one's anti-Semitic language. Above all, it endorsed a Palestinian state inside the territories Israel conquered in 1967—that is Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank—though it stopped short of recognising Israel.
But Mr Meshal was supplanted by a more radical and pro-Iranian camp that emerged largely from Hamas's military command to assume the group's political leadership. It espoused a vision of a Palestinian state stretching "from the river to the sea", says Baraa Nizar Rayan, a writer with close ties to the movement, based in Qatar. Influential in this faction are Yahya Sinwar, its political and military leader in Gaza, and Saleh al-Arouri, Hamas's representative in Beirut who previously commanded the Qassam Brigades, Hamas's armed wing (both pictured bottom right and left respectively). Mr Sinwar had signed up to the new charter, but became more extreme after it failed to lead to a political settlement with Israel, Hamas people say. The attack on October 7th marked the ascendancy of the extremists. "It has proved that the only language Israel understands is force," argues Azzam Tamimi, a sympathetic historian. "Peacemaking with Israel gets them nowhere.""
Thank you.
Rather alarming reports on the shooting of three Israeli hostages.
The hostages were shirtless and waving a red flag when a soldier opened fire and killed two of them, shouting "terrorists". Another soldier killed the third after the commander - at that position - had given a ceasefire order.
Quote from: Tamas on December 16, 2023, 12:04:19 PMWhile I don't care much for your hyperbole, it does raise questions about their ROE.
At some point, you will have to face the truth about Israel as a country and the IDF as an army. It's not an isolated incident, and it's making waves because they were Israeli hostages. They can't use their usual bullshit that they were terrorists.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 16, 2023, 04:19:58 PMRather alarming reports on the shooting of three Israeli hostages.
The hostages were shirtless and waving a red flag when a soldier opened fire and killed two of them, shouting "terrorists". Another soldier killed the third after the commander - at that position - had given a ceasefire order.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/3-hostages-in-gaza-killed-by-friendly-fire-israeli-military-says/
Tamas disapprove of my comments on this. But it's SOP for the IDF to shoot first and ask questions later. Only this time, they can't pretend they were terrorists.
What questions would you ask a person who emerges from a building 10 meters from you in a combat zone?
Quote from: viper37 on December 16, 2023, 08:47:48 PMQuote from: Tamas on December 16, 2023, 12:04:19 PMWhile I don't care much for your hyperbole, it does raise questions about their ROE.
At some point, you will have to face the truth about Israel as a country and the IDF as an army. It's not an isolated incident, and it's making waves because they were Israeli hostages. They can't use their usual bullshit that they were terrorists.
In a long thread in which you have posted non-stop stupid things, this may be the stupidest. This kind of shooting is entirely "typical" of soldiers in an actual war zone, and someone continuing to fire for a bit after an officer tells them to stop shooting is also entirely typical of what goes on in an actual war.
This is true across largely any conflict that has ever been fought, from the most lionized and "noble" military powers to the most reviled.
The U.S. literally killed hundreds of its own people across the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Shit fucking happens in war. No incident involving 3 people is anywhere near justification to make sweeping assumptions about the entire IDF as you have stupidly done here (which again--is further evidence of your virulent, extreme, and unrepentant hatred for Jews, as you are an antisemite and a pro-Hamas agent.)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 16, 2023, 09:45:17 PMQuote from: viper37 on December 16, 2023, 08:47:48 PMQuote from: Tamas on December 16, 2023, 12:04:19 PMWhile I don't care much for your hyperbole, it does raise questions about their ROE.
At some point, you will have to face the truth about Israel as a country and the IDF as an army. It's not an isolated incident, and it's making waves because they were Israeli hostages. They can't use their usual bullshit that they were terrorists.
In a long thread in which you have posted non-stop stupid things, this may be the stupidest. This kind of shooting is entirely "typical" of soldiers in an actual war zone, and someone continuing to fire for a bit after an officer tells them to stop shooting is also entirely typical of what goes on in an actual war.
This is true across largely any conflict that has ever been fought, from the most lionized and "noble" military powers to the most reviled.
The U.S. literally killed hundreds of its own people across the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Shit fucking happens in war. No incident involving 3 people is anywhere near justification to make sweeping assumptions about the entire IDF as you have stupidly done here (which again--is further evidence of your virulent, extreme, and unrepentant hatred for Jews, as you are an antisemite and a pro-Hamas agent.)
Killing Palestinians is not enough to give you a little boost during your day, you got to rejoice when the IDF is killing Israeli Jewish citizens too?
So what you're implying is that IDF is shooting everyone in Gaza they come across?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2023, 09:44:29 PMWhat questions would you ask a person who emerges from a building 10 meters from you in a combat zone?
Can you put your hands in the air and lie down on the ground?
Quote from: Josquius on December 17, 2023, 03:54:44 AMCan you put your hands in the air and lie down on the ground?
good luck.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 16, 2023, 09:44:29 PMWhat questions would you ask a person who emerges from a building 10 meters from you in a combat zone?
The IDF statement was that they came out of a building tens of metres away - so under 100m but more than 10m.
They were shirtless and waving a white flag. Two were shot very promptly as "terrorists". The third was shot after the commander - at that post - had given a ceasefire order.
At the very least, it doesn't suggest a military force that's operating with much discipline.
Quote from: viper37 on December 16, 2023, 11:24:09 AMI don't know if they've always been like that or if it's the result of years under Bibi that turned the IDF into this. They were prone stand by and let others do the killing during the war in Lebanon, but nowadays, it seems they take pleasure in shooting unarmed civilians.
And of course, anyone who dares question Israel is a racist.
Probably panicky reservists?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 17, 2023, 05:59:57 AMThe IDF statement was that they came out of a building tens of metres away - so under 100m but more than 10m.
They were shirtless and waving a white flag. Two were shot very promptly as "terrorists". The third was shot after the commander - at that post - had given a ceasefire order.
At the very least, it doesn't suggest a military force that's operating with much discipline.
Do you have any reason to believe that disciplined militaries immediately cease fire the second the order is given?
I am basing my belief that fire petering out after a cease fire order is pretty standard is based solely on Hollywood movies so if you have a better source I'm willing to stand corrected.
From the Jerusalem Post reporting on what happened:
QuoteAccording to an initial probe, the hostages were standing near a building with the words "help" and "SOS" spray-painted on its exterior walls.
In addition, the IDF also found a message saying "three hostages – help," on the buildings two days before the deadly altercation.
Initially, the military avoided the buildings with those messages believing that they were Hamas traps.
Eventually, one IDF soldier came into direct eye contact with the three hostages at a distance of dozens of meters.
The hostages raised a white flag, cried for help, and kept their upper bodies bare so that no one would suspect they were hiding a bomb under their shirts.
One IDF soldier fired on the three hostages.
Subsequently, the army has concluded that this initial fire killed two of the hostages, but only wounded the third one, who ran back into the building from which he had exited with the other two.
At this stage, the battalion commander called on all IDF forces to cease fire as an operational matter to allow other forces in nearby buildings to exit without being hit by friendly fire.
Some minutes later, the wounded third hostage exited the building again, pleading for a second time to be saved. Two different sets of soldiers other than the original soldier who killed the other two shot him dead.
There's really no way to spin this in a good way. IDF fucked up.
Quote from: Josephus on December 17, 2023, 06:30:02 AMQuote from: viper37 on December 16, 2023, 11:24:09 AMI don't know if they've always been like that or if it's the result of years under Bibi that turned the IDF into this. They were prone stand by and let others do the killing during the war in Lebanon, but nowadays, it seems they take pleasure in shooting unarmed civilians.
And of course, anyone who dares question Israel is a racist.
Probably panicky reservists?
It if was just one isolated incident, yes.
But it's a pattern with Palestinians. And they usually say they were terrorists.
When they're not shot and killed, they are being degraded, paraded half naked and often beaten.
If these 3 hostages had been Palestinian civilians, this is the story that would have been spinned: "3 terrorists came out attacking and throwing rocks and explosives at our soldiers who fealt threatened and defended themselves bravely".
Yeah, an enemy that uses every dirty trick in the book does that to you.
We don't know the particulars, right now it looks bad on the IDF, but I haven't seen their side of it yet.
For all we know the Gazans have pretended to be hostages a 100 times before they sent out real hostages. We don't know exactly what happened, but it sure does not look good on the IDF right now.
This is their side of it. This is from the IDF's statements to the press in Israel as reported by the Jerusalem Post and others.
The IDF have said the rules of engagement were broken.
Thanks, I missed it for all anti-semitism. God damn, that is incompetent.
It really is a wonder that if they do this to some Israelis, how many times they've done this to innocent Palestinians without the worlds media ready to jump on the IDF.
I hope (probably in vein) any investigation goes much deeper than just this one incident.
Quote from: Threviel on December 17, 2023, 11:55:49 AMThanks, I missed it for all anti-semitism. God damn, that is incompetent.
Understandable enough - I've found the Jerusalem Post and Israeli commentators are fairly robust and helpful for me. I have found on a few issues there's a gap between that and what's going on in this thread though.
I'm rather seeing my first instinct correct. They assumed it was a trap due to the ever present war crimes of the Gazans. This might be house #485 indicating hostages inside.
Logic also dictates that every sign outside is put there by the Gazans, the hostages can be assumed to not escape and then paint a house with their presence.
Still, it worked due to the incompetence of the IDF and gave fodder to anti-semites like viper and useful idiots aping after.
Edit: Not in response to Sheilbh
Yeah, not like actually shooting these guys is excusable, but if the IDF ignored their "help we are hostages here" signs for days it must be because they have been duped into traps and ambushes by similar messages.
Yeah, or they are incompetent and we are duped by our anti-anti-semitism.
Occam indicates this chain of events to be happening often and this time the Gazans won.
https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-778327
QuoteTwo-thirds (About 67%) of young Americans between the ages of 18-24 believe that Jews as a class are oppressors and should be treated as oppressors, according to a new poll conducted by Harris Insights and Analytics and Harvard University's Center for American Political Studies (CAPS).
The poll, conducted among about 2,000 registered voters in the US, additionally found that more than half (51%) of 18-24 year olds believe that the long-term answer for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is for "Israel to be ended and given to Hamas and the Palestinians," although another question on the poll, asking if Israel has the right to exist, found that 69% of that cohort believe that Israel does have the right to exist.
Despite the data above, bipartisan support for Israel among Americans in general remains high, according to the poll. Some 63% of Democrats and 71% of Republicans believe that the US should be supporting Israel in the war against Hamas.
Support for aid to Israel that was recently approved is high as well among Republicans and Democrats, although more than half of independent voters oppose such aid.
Additionally, 84% of Americans said they believe that the October 7 massacre was a terrorist attack, with almost three-fourths (73%) saying it was genocidal in nature and 73% saying it was not justified by the grievances of Palestinians.
On October 7, Hamas launched a brutal attack on Israel that took the lives of 1,200 people. The terrorist group also abducted over 230 individuals - some of whom were US citizens.
Among Americans between the ages of 18-24, some 73% also said they thought it was a terrorist attack and three-fourths (66%) said it was genocidal in nature, but 60% also said that it could be justified by the grievances of Palestinians.
Additionally, while 81% of all Americans said they support Israel over Hamas, only half of Americans between the ages of 18-24 felt the same.
Americans believe Israel trying to avoid civilian casualties in defensive war
When asked if they think Israel is trying to avoid civilian casualties in the war against Hamas, 69% of Americans said that they believe Israel is trying to avoid such casualties. The percentage of Americans between the ages of 18-24 who thought the same was actually higher than the national average at 70%.
The majority of Americans (63%) also believe that Israel is just trying to defend itself, although the majority of Americans between the ages of 18-24 and between the ages of 25-34 believe that Israel is committing genocide.
Additionally, the vast majority of Americans (81%) said that Israel has a right to defend itself against terror attacks by "launching air strikes on targets in heavily populated Palestinian areas with warnings to those citizens." In contrast to the results on some other questions, this option had widespread support among young Americans, with a similar number (80%) of 18-24 year olds saying that Israel does have the right to defend itself in such a way. This percentage was slightly lower among 25-44 year olds.
A large majority of respondents (69%) said they were either following the war very closely or somewhat closely. In the youngest age category, 81% said they were following the war. In the next ascending age category, aged 25-34, 68% said they were following the war. Three-quarters of respondents aged 35-44, 58% of those aged 45-54, 62% aged 55-64 and 76% aged 65+ said the same.
Most young Americans support ceasefire that would leave hostages in Gaza
The poll additionally found that two-thirds of Americans between the ages of 18-24 are in favor of an unconditional ceasefire that would leave the hostages in Gaza and Hamas in power. Some 64% of Americans said that a ceasefire should only happen once the hostages are all released and Hamas is removed from power.
A similar question, asking if Israel should cease all hostilities now or keep going until Hamas is defeated and the hostages are released, found that 63% of Americans agree, while the sentiment is basically reversed among 18-24 year olds, with 57% of them thinking Israel should cease all hostilities now.
Additionally, almost three-fourths (74%) of Americans said they believe Hamas wants to commit genocide against the Jews in Israel, although only 58% of those between the ages of 18-24 said the same.
When asked if they think Hamas is an organization that can be negotiated with to create peace, more than three-fourths (76%) of 18-24 year olds agree. Among the totality of Americans, 64% disagree, saying that they believe Hamas is dedicated only to the destruction of Israel.
Two-thirds of Americans (66%) believe that Hamas is not supported by the majority of Gazans, although a similar number of those between the ages of 18-24 (64%) don't.
The vast majority of Americans (80%) believe that Hamas uses civilians as human shields – and three-fourths said they believe that Hamas, not Israel, is primarily responsible for putting Gazan civilians in harm's way.
Additionally, almost three-fourths of Americans (73%) said Hamas is primarily responsible for triggering the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, while a slight majority of Americans 18-24 said that Israel is primarily responsible.
The vast majority of Americans (81%) believe that Hamas should be removed from running Gaza, with a majority of Americans between the ages of 18-24 (58%) feeling the same.
Americans are split on who should run Gaza if Hamas is removed, with more than a third (34%) saying that Israel should, 27% that the Palestinian Authority should, and 38% saying that it should be a new authority set up with Arab nations.
Among 18-24 year olds who were asked this question, nearly half (45%) answered that Israel should administer the Gaza Strip, followed by 41% saying the PA should, and 14% saying a new authority should. Among 25-44 year olds, the largest portion of respondents also supported Israel administering the Strip, while among Americans 45 years old and older, most supported the establishment of a new authority.
Americans aware of growing antisemitism in US
In terms of antisemitism in the US, three-quarters of respondents said that they think antisemitism is growing in the US and almost two-thirds (65%) said they think discrimination against Muslims is growing there. Additionally, 68% think that antisemitism is prevalent on university campuses and 76% said Jewish students on campuses are facing harassment over being Jewish.
When asked "if a student calls for the genocide of Jews, should that student be told that they are free to call for genocide or should such students face actions for violating university rules?" more than half (53%) of Americans between the ages of 18-24 said that such a student should be told that they are free to call for genocide. Among the totality of American respondents, almost three-fourths (74%) said that such a student should face actions for violating university rules.
In comparison, 70% of Americans between the ages of 18-24 said that protesters on campuses calling for the genocide of Jews does constitute hate speech. Among the totality of American respondents, the response was basically reversed, with 79% saying that they do.
Additionally, 71% of Americans between the ages of 18-24 believe that calling for the genocide of Jews on campuses constitutes harassment. Among the totality of American respondents, 82% agreed.
When asked who they think is responsible for antisemitism on campuses, 24% of Americans said it's always been there, 20% said students, 18% said left-wing political movements, 11% said university presidents, another 11% said foreign funding of universities, 7% said university professors, and 8% said that none of the above were responsible.
Americans unhappy with university presidents' response to antisemitism
While most Americans (62%) said that they felt that university presidents did not go far enough to condemn antisemitism on their campuses during recent congressional testimony, 67% of those between the ages of 18-24 said they thought that the presidents did.
Regarding whether "university presidents who said that calls for the genocide of Jews on their campuses are not necessarily a violation of their school's code of conduct and harassment policies because it 'depends on the context' or 'whether speech turns into conduct'" should resign, almost three-fourths (74%) of Americans said that they should, as did a similar number (73%) of those between the ages of 18-24.
Approval of university presidents in general was low among Americans, with 64% saying that university presidents were failing to lead the next generation. Americans between the ages of 18-24 were split on the matter, with 51% saying university presidents are showing the right leadership and 49% saying they were failing to lead.
Most Americans believe US should respond to attacks by Iran Axis
The poll also asked respondents if the US should respond to attacks it's undergoing from Iran-backed proxies in the region with strikes against these groups, or if it should just defend itself, with three-fourths (67%) of Americans saying the US should respond with strikes. Among those between the ages of 18-24, only 58% agreed.
When asked if US President Joe Biden has been acting forcefully enough against such attacks against US forces, Americans were split 50-50. Additionally, most Americans believe Biden's policy on Iran has been unsuccessful, although a slight majority of Americans between the ages of 18-24 believe it has been successful.
Worth cross referencing with how many people in that age group have a clue who any of these groups are, or where Palestine, or hell, the middle east, is on a map.
The conflicting responses to questions asked a different way makes me suspect the results here wouldn't be great
Quote from: Josquius on December 18, 2023, 03:43:58 AMWorth cross referencing with how many people in that age group have a clue who any of these groups are, or where Palestine, or hell, the middle east, is on a map.
The conflicting responses to questions asked a different way makes me suspect the results here wouldn't be great
Yeah to be fair you are almost certainly right. But I am not sure it makes it better, though.
Quote from: Tamas on December 18, 2023, 04:30:06 AMQuote from: Josquius on December 18, 2023, 03:43:58 AMWorth cross referencing with how many people in that age group have a clue who any of these groups are, or where Palestine, or hell, the middle east, is on a map.
The conflicting responses to questions asked a different way makes me suspect the results here wouldn't be great
Yeah to be fair you are almost certainly right. But I am not sure it makes it better, though.
I'm more optimistic.
I would like to hope the naiive view of the young is "Everyone should just get along and live together without killing each other". In contrast to the naiive view of older people- "Kill, kill 'em all" (usually meaning the Arabs)
Quote from: Josquius on December 18, 2023, 04:43:57 AMQuote from: Tamas on December 18, 2023, 04:30:06 AMQuote from: Josquius on December 18, 2023, 03:43:58 AMWorth cross referencing with how many people in that age group have a clue who any of these groups are, or where Palestine, or hell, the middle east, is on a map.
The conflicting responses to questions asked a different way makes me suspect the results here wouldn't be great
Yeah to be fair you are almost certainly right. But I am not sure it makes it better, though.
I'm more optimistic.
I would like to hope the naiive view of the young is "Everyone should just get along and live together without killing each other". In contrast to the naiive view of older people- "Kill, kill 'em all" (usually meaning the Arabs)
Sure the problem is, according to the poll, in their youthful idealistic ignorance if they heard the news "Arab states overrun Israel and proclaim re-unified Palestine" they'd be happy because they thought occupied Palestinians were freed, ignorant of the what such an event would entail.
Quote from: Josquius on December 18, 2023, 04:43:57 AMI'm more optimistic.
I would like to hope the naiive view of the young is "Everyone should just get along and live together without killing each other". In contrast to the naiive view of older people- "Kill, kill 'em all" (usually meaning the Arabs)
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2023, 08:13:26 AMQuote from: Josquius on December 18, 2023, 04:43:57 AMI'm more optimistic.
I would like to hope the naiive view of the young is "Everyone should just get along and live together without killing each other". In contrast to the naiive view of older people- "Kill, kill 'em all" (usually meaning the Arabs)
:lol:
This time they'll march into pogroms singing kumbaya and holding hands!
To be clear on the IDF shooting the hostages, the controversy isn't over whether it was a fuckup, it is rather "does this fuckup say something important."
I don't think it does, there's like 300,000 IDF reservists activated, this is a war that has seen 15,000+ dead already. A low level of "bad" shoots is intrinsic to war, you can find dozens of stories like this from the U.S. occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. It isn't innately proof the entire IDF is in a state of rot, anymore than those incidents were indicative of that with the U.S. military. I'll note that despite involving the world's largest military, and the country that has a media establishment that always relishes publishing military fuckups, not nearly as big a deal was made out of fuckups like this in Iraq / Afghanistan.
I'm not saying there is necessarily a "right" level of media outrage over an accidental military shooting; but I do think it is interesting to note the degree of media obsession with Israeli fuckups feels a whole order of magnitude beyond even what is typical of other Western powers engaged in conflict.
For better or worse there's a very high level scrutiny on this conflict, and there are a number of reasonable reasons for that beyond simple anti-semitism.
People always care more about conflicts when they can identify a party that they see as analogous to themselves. Similarly, they care more if one of the sides take actions they can imagine being a threat to themselves. Basically, the more people can see themselves in the conflict, the more they care.
Additionally, if a conflict directly ties into local political dynamics, people will care more - whether it's because there is direct involvement or because the conflict echoes local conflicts.
So, Muslims and Arabs will naturally tend to see the Palestinians as like themselves and therefore care more. Some Westerners will picture themselves in the Israeli position, and thus sympathize more (though not to the same degree and as overwhelmingly as Muslims and Arabs feel connected to Palestinians, I suspect).
In terms of local politics, immigration and the integration of Muslims into local societies are pretty prominent political issues in much of Western Europe - and the Israel-Palestine conflict plays directly into that in a number of ways. In the US, support of Israel has been integrated into the regular political discourse for a long time.
On top of that, most Western countries have dealt with the threat of Islamist terror attacks one way or the other - which resonates pretty clearly with the Oct 7th attacks.
And to be clear, there are a whole bunch of conflicting positions within the various Western countries on these issues - and what happens in Israel and Palestine, and how, can be used to bolster or undermine arguments being made that are relevant to decisions with significant local impact (and to mark local political allegiances).
As such I think it's pretty natural for there to be a high level of interest and scrutiny.
Since we are shitting on the American youth for their poll views, what do the polls say about the Israeli youth?
I mean I already linked truly unsurprising, and horrifying, views of the Palestinians.
I am just going to go out on a limb and say it is likely the views of the Israelis are not going to be any more comforting.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 18, 2023, 02:41:24 PMIt isn't innately proof the entire IDF is in a state of rot, anymore than those incidents were indicative of that with the U.S. military. I'll note that despite involving the world's largest military, and the country that has a media establishment that always relishes publishing military fuckups, not nearly as big a deal was made out of fuckups like this in Iraq / Afghanistan.
I don't think the IDF is in a state of rot so much as decades of violence and conflict have radicalized them.
Quote from: Valmy on December 18, 2023, 04:31:50 PMSince we are shitting on the American youth for their poll views, what do the polls say about the Israeli youth?
I mean I already linked truly unsurprising, and horrifying, views of the Palestinians.
I am just going to go out on a limb and say it is likely the views of the Israelis are not going to be any more comforting.
My bet is similar to the Palestinians?
Broadly a lot less radical than people believe before shit went down, but then please shoot them all now within recent weeks?
But haven't seen the actual numbers so who knows.
Quote from: Josquius on December 18, 2023, 05:07:39 PMMy bet is similar to the Palestinians?
Broadly a lot less radical than people believe before shit went down, but then please shoot them all now within recent weeks?
But haven't seen the actual numbers so who knows.
I'll take the bet.
Israel at least has internal opposition demanding a cease-fire. I bet Otto thinks they are antisemitic too.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 18, 2023, 05:27:20 PMIsrael at least has internal opposition demanding a cease-fire.
That is a plus.
The minus is they are almost always rejected by the Israeli voters.
The Houthi are continuing attacks on shipping in the Red Sea / Gulf of Aden area. As a result BP, Mærsk, Hapag-Lloyd, MSC, CMA CGM, and Evergreen have all either temporarily halted shipping through the Red Sea or changed their routes to round the Cape of Good Hope. This will likely have price impacts in Europe within the next few weeks.
They are setting themselves for a marines visit.
Unlikely Marines...but maybe a lot of bombs.
Quote from: Jacob on December 18, 2023, 08:02:47 PMThe Houthi are continuing attacks on shipping in the Red Sea / Gulf of Aden area. As a result BP, Mærsk, Hapag-Lloyd, MSC, CMA CGM, and Evergreen have all either temporarily halted shipping through the Red Sea or changed their routes to round the Cape of Good Hope. This will likely have price impacts in Europe within the next few weeks.
Yeah - I think oil and LNG prices in Europe have already shot up. I think energy is still already about four times the price it is in the US and is causing huge issues especially for industry.
US, France and UK also already have their navies in the neighbourhood to help shoot down missiles.
Two things it makes me think of is that it's another example of how Europe's security capability do not match Europe's security needs - we rely on the kindness of Americans yet again (although as this also affects Israel I don't expect that to decline any time soon).
The other is how it reinforces the logic of the Belt and Road - I remember reading how China's thinking on that started with the Iraq war and the realisation that 80% of their energy supply/oil (and many other imports and exports) went through the Straits of Malacca and they needed an alternative, non-vulnerable route to China's economy. That is, of course, the opposite to Europe's approach which has been to note strategic weaknesses (energy, trade, security etc) and lean into them :lol: :bleeding: :weep:
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 18, 2023, 10:13:25 PMThey are setting themselves for a marines visit.
Just read that Canada is joining a US lead naval force to the area.
Peace Keeping at sea I suppose.
The Empire will sail again!
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 19, 2023, 01:19:32 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on December 18, 2023, 10:13:25 PMThey are setting themselves for a marines visit.
Just read that Canada is joining a US lead naval force to the area.
Peace Keeping at sea I suppose.
Are we sending both our destroyers?
HMCS Haida isn't commissioned & I don't think we have any other Destroyers.
QuoteThe head of a Gaza hospital has admitted to being a senior Hamas commander — and detailed how the terror group transformed the medical site into an operational hub that once housed a kidnapped Israeli soldier.
Ahmad Kahlot, director of Kamal Adwan Hospital in Jabaliya, made his taped confession to the Israeli security service Shin Bet after his arrest during last week's raid on the facility in northern Gaza.
Yeah, but the anti-semites will paint that as either false confession or a reasonable act due to Jewish perfidy.
We know the Gazans are scum breaking every rule in the book, more evidence is not going to make their supporters stop supporting them.
Is this the hospital they searched for the tv cameras and found nothing of note? Or a different one?
Quote from: Threviel on December 20, 2023, 03:10:05 AMYeah, but the anti-semites will paint that as either false confession or a reasonable act due to Jewish perfidy.
We know the Gazans are scum breaking every rule in the book, more evidence is not going to make their supporters stop supporting them.
Gazans?
Quote from: Jacob on December 20, 2023, 03:53:17 AMQuote from: Threviel on December 20, 2023, 03:10:05 AMYeah, but the anti-semites will paint that as either false confession or a reasonable act due to Jewish perfidy.
We know the Gazans are scum breaking every rule in the book, more evidence is not going to make their supporters stop supporting them.
Gazans?
Gaza's Oct 7 attack for instance.
Quote from: Jacob on December 20, 2023, 03:53:17 AMQuote from: Threviel on December 20, 2023, 03:10:05 AMYeah, but the anti-semites will paint that as either false confession or a reasonable act due to Jewish perfidy.
We know the Gazans are scum breaking every rule in the book, more evidence is not going to make their supporters stop supporting them.
Gazans?
Yeah, the state entity at war with Israel since their Oct 7th attack.
Quote from: Josquius on December 20, 2023, 03:33:52 AMIs this the hospital they searched for the tv cameras and found nothing of note? Or a different one?
There's your answer Threviel. :D
What I've seen is, if we're talking about Shifra hospital, nothing of note is a tunnel system under the hospital that connects into it, some weapons, and some clothes in the basement that might or might not be signs of an Israeli hostage kept there.
This confession will not register.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 20, 2023, 07:52:45 AMQuote from: Josquius on December 20, 2023, 03:33:52 AMIs this the hospital they searched for the tv cameras and found nothing of note? Or a different one?
There's your answer Threviel. :D
What I've seen is, if we're talking about Shifra hospital, nothing of note is a tunnel system under the hospital that connects into it, some weapons, and some clothes in the basement that might or might not be signs of an Israeli hostage kept there.
This confession will not register.
I can't remember it's name but the one that was on TV last month did indeed find nothing of note.
The weapons were consistent with what is standard for security in that part of the world (despite some insisting it proved Hamas was based there) and the tunnels a very sensible precaution when you're based in Gaza, as current events show very well.
There were no hints of hostages.
And I'm not an anti semite. Don't be silly.
Quote from: Josquius on December 20, 2023, 08:32:42 AMI can't remember it's name but the one that was on TV last month did indeed find nothing of note.
The weapons were consistent with what is standard for security in that part of the world (despite some insisting it proved Hamas was based there) and the tunnels a very sensible precaution when you're based in Gaza, as current events show very well.
There were no hints of hostages.
And I'm not an anti semite. Don't be silly.
"That part of the world" being the Shifra hospital, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen? You just made that up.
"The Israelis will attack this hospital, so let's build tunnels too narrow to sit in that you can only enter by a ladder, so we can move our patients down there when they come." Get real man.
And for the record I don't consider you an anti-Semite Squeeze.
A much better fit with the "anti-colonial liberation movements can do no wrong" Corbynites.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 20, 2023, 08:43:44 AMQuote from: Josquius on December 20, 2023, 08:32:42 AMI can't remember it's name but the one that was on TV last month did indeed find nothing of note.
The weapons were consistent with what is standard for security in that part of the world (despite some insisting it proved Hamas was based there) and the tunnels a very sensible precaution when you're based in Gaza, as current events show very well.
There were no hints of hostages.
And I'm not an anti semite. Don't be silly.
"That part of the world" being the Shifra hospital, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen? You just made that up.
"The Israelis will attack this hospital, so let's build tunnels too narrow to sit in that you can only enter by a ladder, so we can move our patients down there when they come." Get real man.
That part of the world being the middle east. It's pretty common in a lot of unstable developing countries that hospitals and even high end shops and banks have ak47 armed guys on guard.
The tunnels I've seen were pretty accessible.
And I'm not a corbynite either, not by a long shot.
I've seen tunnels you can drive through. Been in them. I was talking about the tunnels underneath Shifra.
Quote from: Threviel on December 20, 2023, 04:21:34 AMQuote from: Jacob on December 20, 2023, 03:53:17 AMQuote from: Threviel on December 20, 2023, 03:10:05 AMYeah, but the anti-semites will paint that as either false confession or a reasonable act due to Jewish perfidy.
We know the Gazans are scum breaking every rule in the book, more evidence is not going to make their supporters stop supporting them.
Gazans?
Yeah, the state entity at war with Israel since their Oct 7th attack.
Gaza is now a state? Wow, that's great news. The two state solution dreamed of for a long time has now come to fruition.
Once again, languish comes through, and informs in a way that no other news source could.
But perhaps you could provide a link just in case there are some here who don't believe your assertion that Gaza is in fact a state.
Wait, if it's not a state what was it before Oct 7th?
Yeah I think it's definitely a de facto/quasi state in some way.
There was a defined territory with a single central political body that maintained a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.
It may not have been a declared or internationally recognised state.
Yeah, I'd consider Gaza a de facto if not de jure state, even if it's more like Somaliland than Taiwan.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4G6zx8vsEyQ
I've been getting tons of these IDF hottie videos.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 20, 2023, 11:52:41 AMhttps://www.youtube.com/shorts/4G6zx8vsEyQ
I've been getting tons of these IDF hottie videos.
See, if the Palestinians would put stuff like that out I might support them.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 20, 2023, 11:10:25 AMWait, if it's not a state what was it before Oct 7th?
Its a good question.
Quote from: PJL on December 20, 2023, 11:29:25 AMYeah, I'd consider Gaza a de facto if not de jure state, even if it's more like Somaliland than Taiwan.
how would it be a de jure state?
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 20, 2023, 12:07:25 PMhow would it be a de jure state?
Declaration of independence and international recognition.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 20, 2023, 12:12:36 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on December 20, 2023, 12:07:25 PMhow would it be a de jure state?
Declaration of independence and international recognition.
That sounds more like a de facto existence. For it to be de jure at a minimum the state of Israel would have to agree that it is a legitimate state. And there is no way that is happening any time soon.
Yeah. Practically if the US doesn't recognise you (and tough to see Israel dissenting) then you're not going to be a state operating with legal rights (and the first part of that probably gestures at the contingency of it).
Has any country recognized Gaza?
Quote from: The Brain on December 20, 2023, 02:15:45 PMHas any country recognized Gaza?
Hamas / Gaza doesn't want recognition as Gaza - they want recognition as Palestine.
I don't think even Iran has recognized Hamas as the rightful leaders of "Palestine".
Yeah they've not declared independence or, as you say, have any ambition to do so.
Many countries officially recognise Palestine but that's the PA.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity) (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity))
It's quite clear that Gaza, with Hamas as leaders, can be defined as a state.
It may not be a sovereign state or a nation state or a welfare state or an internationally recognised state, but it is quite clearly some kind of state.
They are certainly a de facto state. Gazapologists in media droning on about how Oct 7 was "Hamas" and had nothing to do with Gaza is just gaslighting.
I haven't been following the Israel-Palestine discourse closely recently (beyond this thread and a few headlines). The rhetoric "Gazans" and "Gazan state entity" is new to me - is that just a quirk of a few languish posters or is it a new thing in the wider public discussion?
Quote from: Jacob on December 20, 2023, 07:12:52 PMI haven't been following the Israel-Palestine discourse closely recently (beyond this thread and a few headlines). The rhetoric "Gazans" and "Gazan state entity" is new to me - is that just a quirk of a few languish posters or is it a new thing in the wider public discussion?
I've not noticed it elsewhere. Just more convenient than people living in Gaza.
Quote from: Jacob on December 20, 2023, 07:12:52 PMI haven't been following the Israel-Palestine discourse closely recently (beyond this thread and a few headlines). The rhetoric "Gazans" and "Gazan state entity" is new to me - is that just a quirk of a few languish posters or is it a new thing in the wider public discussion?
I don't think I've seen it very much elsewhere, which is very very strange. Language matters and all that and it seems that most media chooses to use language that victimifies the Gazans and paints the Israelis baddish.
Refugee camp instead of city for example. They are called refugee camps by the Palestinians for political reasons, but they are just normal cities. Media often calls them refugee camps: "IDF has bombed a refugee camp" sounds far worse that "IDF has bombed a city", not that either sounds very good.
Hamas instead of Gaza, paints the attack and their rule as an act of a minority oppressive terrorist clique rather than state actions with very wide popular support in Gaza.
And so on and so forth. I don't really know how aware the journalists are, but in my experience they are often woefully ignorant of these kinds of things.
Quote from: Jacob on December 20, 2023, 07:12:52 PMI haven't been following the Israel-Palestine discourse closely recently (beyond this thread and a few headlines). The rhetoric "Gazans" and "Gazan state entity" is new to me - is that just a quirk of a few languish posters or is it a new thing in the wider public discussion?
It's nothing stranger than saying that Russia attacked Ukraine. Russiapologists like to make a distinction between Putin and Russia, just like Gazapologists want to paint Gaza as a passive actor.
It wasn't the NSDAP that invaded Poland, it was Germany.
I guess it's better than saying Palestinians? Emphasises it's Hamas' little breakaway that's the problem.
Quote from: Josquius on December 21, 2023, 02:15:08 AMI guess it's better than saying Palestinians? Emphasises it's Hamas' little breakaway that's the problem.
Yeah. Sweden has recognized Palestine, so from a Swedish de jure perspective it's Palestine that attacked Israel. Thankfully the government implicitly seems to accept the de facto situation, where Gaza is its own entity, as the most relevant reference frame.
Quote from: Threviel on December 21, 2023, 12:37:13 AMAnd so on and so forth. I don't really know how aware the journalists are, but in my experience they are often woefully ignorant of these kinds of things.
Not necessarily. Most media outlets have a style that journalists, and their editors, are made to follow. So it may be, for instance, that certain media outlets say that: when referring to certain places in Gaza, make sure to use the term "refugee camp."
It's a rare publication that allows journalists to use the words they want, because, as you say, words matter.
Quote from: Josephus on December 21, 2023, 06:35:02 AMQuote from: Threviel on December 21, 2023, 12:37:13 AMAnd so on and so forth. I don't really know how aware the journalists are, but in my experience they are often woefully ignorant of these kinds of things.
Not necessarily. Most media outlets have a style that journalists, and their editors, are made to follow. So it may be, for instance, that certain media outlets say that: when referring to certain places in Gaza, make sure to use the term "refugee camp."
It's a rare publication that allows journalists to use the words they want, because, as you say, words matter.
What is happening on this forum is an interesting case study for what is happening to society generally as more and more people get their information through social media rather than real news media.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 21, 2023, 08:24:51 AMQuote from: Josephus on December 21, 2023, 06:35:02 AMQuote from: Threviel on December 21, 2023, 12:37:13 AMAnd so on and so forth. I don't really know how aware the journalists are, but in my experience they are often woefully ignorant of these kinds of things.
Not necessarily. Most media outlets have a style that journalists, and their editors, are made to follow. So it may be, for instance, that certain media outlets say that: when referring to certain places in Gaza, make sure to use the term "refugee camp."
It's a rare publication that allows journalists to use the words they want, because, as you say, words matter.
What is happening on this forum is an interesting case study for what is happening to society generally as more and more people get their information through social media rather than real news media.
I wouldn't be too harsh on Josq and Viper though.
Quote from: Tamas on December 21, 2023, 08:40:26 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on December 21, 2023, 08:24:51 AMQuote from: Josephus on December 21, 2023, 06:35:02 AMQuote from: Threviel on December 21, 2023, 12:37:13 AMAnd so on and so forth. I don't really know how aware the journalists are, but in my experience they are often woefully ignorant of these kinds of things.
Not necessarily. Most media outlets have a style that journalists, and their editors, are made to follow. So it may be, for instance, that certain media outlets say that: when referring to certain places in Gaza, make sure to use the term "refugee camp."
It's a rare publication that allows journalists to use the words they want, because, as you say, words matter.
What is happening on this forum is an interesting case study for what is happening to society generally as more and more people get their information through social media rather than real news media.
I wouldn't be too harsh on Josq and Viper though.
I agree. But I think a more harsh judgement can be made for some others.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 21, 2023, 10:15:51 AMQuote from: Tamas on December 21, 2023, 08:40:26 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on December 21, 2023, 08:24:51 AMQuote from: Josephus on December 21, 2023, 06:35:02 AMQuote from: Threviel on December 21, 2023, 12:37:13 AMAnd so on and so forth. I don't really know how aware the journalists are, but in my experience they are often woefully ignorant of these kinds of things.
Not necessarily. Most media outlets have a style that journalists, and their editors, are made to follow. So it may be, for instance, that certain media outlets say that: when referring to certain places in Gaza, make sure to use the term "refugee camp."
It's a rare publication that allows journalists to use the words they want, because, as you say, words matter.
What is happening on this forum is an interesting case study for what is happening to society generally as more and more people get their information through social media rather than real news media.
I wouldn't be too harsh on Josq and Viper though.
I agree. But I think a more harsh judgement can be made for some others.
Yes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFVAOPSgwYo
Israeli interview of captured Hamas gunman.
Yeah, that the world is turning against Israel is so baffling that I don't know what to say. Evidence after evidence on the extreme brutality unleashed against them and still it's the Jews that are hated.
If the logistical preparations for organised centralised mass rape didn't convince anyone about who the bad guys are then nothing is...
Quote from: Threviel on December 25, 2023, 04:41:15 AMYeah, that the world is turning against Israel is so baffling that I don't know what to say. Evidence after evidence on the extreme brutality unleashed against them and still it's the Jews that are hated.
If the logistical preparations for organised centralised mass rape didn't convince anyone about who the bad guys are then nothing is...
Nobody (of relevance and not themselves horrid) doubts Hamas and co are evil fuckers. That's never been the debate.
Israel gets criticism because it has all the power and its really smashing the civilian population of gaza hard. A million kids being subjected to abject horror because Israel stronk.
There's not always a simple good and bad.
The vibe of much of the criticism feels to me likes its coming precisely because we are on Israels side. There's no doubt the attacks were bad, they want the hostages back, Hamas need removing, and so on. But theres a big "seriously guys?" factor about how Israel is going about it. That they are on our side makes it particularly worthy of criticism.
Quote from: Josquius on December 25, 2023, 05:11:23 AMQuote from: Threviel on December 25, 2023, 04:41:15 AMYeah, that the world is turning against Israel is so baffling that I don't know what to say. Evidence after evidence on the extreme brutality unleashed against them and still it's the Jews that are hated.
If the logistical preparations for organised centralised mass rape didn't convince anyone about who the bad guys are then nothing is...
Nobody (of relevance and not themselves horrid) doubts Hamas and co are evil fuckers. That's never been the debate.
This is bullshit and you know it.
So when does refugee camps stop being refugee camps and become towns and cities? Will they still be called that in 2048? I wish the global press wouldn't use Hamas vocabulary on this. Of course THEY call them camps because the whole idea is that one day all those people living there (I wager almost nobody who fled Israeli territory in 1948 is still alive there) will be relocating to "proper" Palestine when they river-to-the-sea all the Jews into the sea.
Quote from: Tamas on December 25, 2023, 08:03:53 AMSo when does refugee camps stop being refugee camps and become towns and cities? Will they still be called that in 2048? I wish the global press wouldn't use Hamas vocabulary on this.
Going off the past few months that disturbingly sounds like a best case scenario.
Note it isn't just in Palestine that you have refugee camps that have existed for generations and it isn't just Hamas cynically using this language. It's an official UN designation.
Far from my area, more one for the lawyers, but I'd imagine refugee camps for Palestinians dissapearing would depend on a definitive outcome to normalise the situation whether it be they get their land back (obviously not) or more likely (but further away than ever) some form of compensation, apologies for the past being shit, mutual recognition dealy.
QuoteOf course THEY call them camps because the whole idea is that one day all those people living there (I wager almost nobody who fled Israeli territory in 1948 is still alive there) will be relocating to "proper" Palestine when they river-to-the-sea all the Jews into the sea.
There you're being daft.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 25, 2023, 07:42:16 AMQuote from: Josquius on December 25, 2023, 05:11:23 AMQuote from: Threviel on December 25, 2023, 04:41:15 AMYeah, that the world is turning against Israel is so baffling that I don't know what to say. Evidence after evidence on the extreme brutality unleashed against them and still it's the Jews that are hated.
If the logistical preparations for organised centralised mass rape didn't convince anyone about who the bad guys are then nothing is...
Nobody (of relevance and not themselves horrid) doubts Hamas and co are evil fuckers. That's never been the debate.
This is bullshit and you know it.
This is bullshit and you know it.
The head of the labor party was keen on Hamas. Mélenchon in France refuses to condemn Hamas along with his party. We've had several American politicians refuse to condemn Hamas as well.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 25, 2023, 09:57:54 AMThe head of the labor party was keen on Hamas. Mélenchon in France refuses to condemn Hamas along with his party. We've had several American politicians refuse to condemn Hamas as well.
One by one
1: pure lie
2: a guy whose best showing was a lucky third in the French election refuses to condemn them?
Falls short of both being someone of relevance and in actually supporting them.
3: again plenty of reasons why someone might not want to join the 5 minutes of hate other than thinking Hamas are swell actually. And pretty sure none of these handful of politicians are particularly prominent.
Lots of people seem to hate Jews, here in Sweden we have socialist parliamentarians that support Hamas and refuse to condemn them. And a Social Democrat party indirectly supporting them through their lack of condemnation. And they are in turn supported by lots of people like Jos.
This conflict made me realise that Jew-hatred is a thing, especially amongst middle easterners, but also amongst otherwise sane looking westerners and even in East Asia. Hamas has huge global support. We can pretend it's not a thing, but that's pretending.
By different levels of separation the pro-Gaza crowd support Hamas, it's genocide support by naivety.
The only way to support the people of Gaza without supporting the goals of Hamas at the same time is to argue for Hamas to immediately give up power and support investigations into the crimes committed and the apprehension of those responsible. But I haven't actually heard that from anyone. No-one seems to argue that any end to the present conflict necessarily must to end with Hamas out of power.
Quote from: Josquius on December 25, 2023, 05:11:23 AMNobody (of relevance and not themselves horrid) doubts Hamas and co are evil fuckers. That's never been the debate.
Plenty of Palestinians do not see Hamas as evil fuckers. We can see that in the survey results.
Plenty of others accept the logic that 40 years of occupation inevitably led to the October 7 attack. Implicitly that means they are not evil fuckers.
Quote from: Josquius on December 25, 2023, 10:03:40 AMQuote from: Razgovory on December 25, 2023, 09:57:54 AMThe head of the labor party was keen on Hamas. Mélenchon in France refuses to condemn Hamas along with his party. We've had several American politicians refuse to condemn Hamas as well.
One by one
1: pure lie
2: a guy whose best showing was a lucky third in the French election refuses to condemn them?
Falls short of both being someone of relevance and in actually supporting them.
3: again plenty of reasons why someone might not want to join the 5 minutes of hate other than thinking Hamas are swell actually. And pretty sure none of these handful of politicians are particularly prominent.
Corbyn having "friends" in Hamas is a "pure lie"? Oh, you are sure that these American politicians who refused to denounce Hamas are not prominent. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez was one of them. You heard of her?
I will tell you, this thing with Israel has left me a bit ticked-off at my fellow leftists.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 25, 2023, 01:33:20 PMI will tell you, this thing with Israel has left me a bit ticked-off at my fellow leftists.
It definitely made me start thinking about the conditions when I will no longer consider myself a left-winger. Genocide enablement is just one issue, but it's a pretty big issue (and no, only one side is aiming to perpetrate a genocide, and it's the side that thankfully as of this moment can only do it on a scale of a music concert or a kibbutz).
I've also reconsidered a number of my assumptions and arguments in the wake of the Oct 7th attacks.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 25, 2023, 01:17:53 PMQuote from: Josquius on December 25, 2023, 10:03:40 AMQuote from: Razgovory on December 25, 2023, 09:57:54 AMThe head of the labor party was keen on Hamas. Mélenchon in France refuses to condemn Hamas along with his party. We've had several American politicians refuse to condemn Hamas as well.
One by one
1: pure lie
2: a guy whose best showing was a lucky third in the French election refuses to condemn them?
Falls short of both being someone of relevance and in actually supporting them.
3: again plenty of reasons why someone might not want to join the 5 minutes of hate other than thinking Hamas are swell actually. And pretty sure none of these handful of politicians are particularly prominent.
Corbyn having "friends" in Hamas is a "pure lie"? Oh, you are sure that these American politicians who refused to denounce Hamas are not prominent. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez was one of them. You heard of her?
Firstly Corbyn isn't labour leader. He's a independent backbench MP and a complete irrelevancy.
Keir starmer is labour leader and he has had a very by the book response.
Though still need to defend Corbyn - as much as he's an absolute tool of a tankie at least insult him based on reality - he doesn't have friends in Hamas. That's ridiculous Tory spin.
AOC is famous but again not joining the officially sanctioned five minutes of hate isn't the same thing as supporting Hamas. I've no idea what she has had to say on the topic. Anything? She's also despite her fame nowhere near a relevant player in the situation.
QuoteI will tell you, this thing with Israel has left me a bit ticked-off at my fellow leftists.
Tankies couldn't get any lower in my estimation after Ukraine. I don't follow any social media channels where they hang out to get their nonsense around Palestine though.
As far as here goes though it is weird that some otherwise rational folk seem to embrace an outright trump level black and white view on things. Israel can do no wrong. Hamas are evil thus those Palestinian children have it coming.
Quote from: Josquius on December 25, 2023, 01:51:28 PMAs far as here goes though it is weird that some otherwise rational folk seem to embrace an outright trump level black and white view on things. Israel can do no wrong. Hamas are evil thus those Palestinian children have it coming.
This the point where I have to decide whether to tell you to go fuck yourself or tune you out for the duration and hope you recover.
Would you like to retract this statement?
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10157277405491729
This has Corbyn's exact quote.
Is it so hard to say Hamas is bad? I would have thought that this is a no brainer. It's like asking if Nazis are bad.
And from a Swedish perspective we have Greta.
Great impact on environmental stuff, invigorates the youth in a non-stupid way and despite her young years a sensible voice in the world.
Goes completely insane on this conflict which puts all her previous effort in doubt and instantly removes all her credibility.
I have been thinking a bit about how a reasonable individual can argue against the war. There are probably lots of ways, but this is what I've been thinking.
The first thing to consider is a proper response to the October attack. One response might be that the attacks were a justified expression of the powerlessness of the Palestinians and the level of violence was a proportional response to decades of Israeli aggression. In that case Israel should not go to war and you are a supporter of Hamas.
I argue that the extreme violence, the meditated methods of it and the form it took removes all rights of the Hamas state to exist in its present form. They need to be removed at all reasonable cost.
Between those two are arguments that this should be resolved diplomatically. In real terms that means that Hamas rule will continue and that they will win a huge propaganda victory. In real terms any argument here means that you are a supporter of Hamas rule.
But hey, you're not, you want to see Hamas removed, but you don't want children to die.
So, let's look at the options there:
1. Hamas goes voluntarily after diplomatic moves.
Not going to happen, pure imaginary fantasies.
2. Popular revolution/democratic vote removes Hamas.
The Gazans are massively behind Hamas and support them. No popular revolution is coming.
3. An international coalition can go in as peace-keeper.
Not going to happen, no-one wants to touch this with a 100m pole. That would also probably mean foreign troops doing what the IDF is doing now.
That leaves us with two options. Hamas stays or IDF removes them.
Which more or less makes everyones choice a hell. Either you in practice support Hamas or you in practice support Israel. You might argue that you only want peace and love, and think of the poor children, but in practice that's a vote on Hamas as rulers of Gaza. And you might say bullshit and that nothing is black or white and I would almost always agree, but in this case it's rather more black and white than usual.
For myself I'm not overly fond of Israeli politics these last decades and would they kindly fuck off back to their own country and stop settling Palestinian lands. But there's just no way in hell I would support Hamas over them.
(You in this case addressed to no-one in particular)
The Gazans are not massively behind Hamas. That Arab Barometer poll showed Gazan support for Hamas at 50% and West Bank support for Hamas at 75%.
Not quite sure how the IDF can remove Hamas - and I think that's being borne out. I think The Economist's defence correspondent's summary sounds right - heavy, but not crippling damage to Hamas' combat capacity, modest damage to the leadership (none of the top three targets), some success on tunnels in the North. Nothing decisive and unlikely to be so by the year's end - all at a huge civilian cost.
If you take the war is politics by other means line and I agree with the goal of removing Hamas. I've still not seen anything from Israel that makes me think that the war, as being executed, is a way of achieving that political goal - and I'm not sure they have an idea of how to do that. The only route I can see for that is probably a very long term occupation and state building by Israel - the occupation would be difficult generally, state building is impossible for this government.
Obviously as a consequnce of the 7 October attacks there is a political need and demand for a military response. I'm not sure there is (that I've seen) a military campaign that can meet Israel's obectives as far as we know them. As I say I suspect the Israeli leadership want population transfer/force Palestinians out into Egypt or somewhere else but are constrained and that's what we're seeing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 25, 2023, 01:57:26 PMQuote from: Josquius on December 25, 2023, 01:51:28 PMAs far as here goes though it is weird that some otherwise rational folk seem to embrace an outright trump level black and white view on things. Israel can do no wrong. Hamas are evil thus those Palestinian children have it coming.
This the point where I have to decide whether to tell you to go fuck yourself or tune you out for the duration and hope you recover.
Would you like to retract this statement?
Is that because you think Josq is talking about you in this statement? Because if he did I can see why you'd be pissed off about it... but I don't think he means you.
Quote from: Jacob on December 25, 2023, 05:43:45 PMIs that because you think Josq is talking about you in this statement? Because if he did I can see why you'd be pissed off about it... but I don't think he means you.
No. Doesn't matter. I've paid attention to this thread, read every post. No other posters comments IMO can legitimately be characterized as "Israel can do no wrong" and "kill them all." Saying so is a lie. I can't abide lying.
@Threviel - I think that other argument against Israel's response is that the tens of thousands of Palestinian children do not deserve to suffer in this conflict. That they are innocent and that no level of provocation justifies making children suffer.
Essentially it is allowing Hamas' blackmail from hiding behind civilians be effective. The argument is that Hamas' atrocities do not justify harming children even if Hamas hides behind them.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 25, 2023, 05:48:21 PMNo. Doesn't matter. I've paid attention to this thread, read every post. No other posters comments IMO can legitimately be characterized as "Israel can do no wrong" and "kill them all." Saying so is a lie. I can't abide lying.
Ok. Thanks for clarifying.
The Israelis dropped leaflets at the beginning of the assault warning Gazans to evacuate south of wadi al whatever. Later on they said they would use a grid system and warn Gazans to evacuate certain grids on certain days.
What I have not seen any reporting on, and would very much like to see, is to what extent Gazans have taken those warnings to heart and evacuated those areas.
Quote from: Jacob on December 25, 2023, 05:50:46 PM@Threviel - I think that other argument against Israel's response is that the tens of thousands of Palestinian children do not deserve to suffer in this conflict. That they are innocent and that no level of provocation justifies making children suffer.
Essentially it is allowing Hamas' blackmail from hiding behind civilians be effective. The argument is that Hamas' atrocities do not justify harming children even if Hamas hides behind them.
No they don't and it's not an easy conflict to support a side in. Both sides do awful shit, but if we want less children to die then the killing has to stop and for the killing to stop Hamas has to go. Otherwise we'll have this conflict again and again until Israel loses and we have millions of dead or Israel goes fundamentalist and "remove" the Palestinian problem again resulting in potentially millions dead or it will simmer forever resulting in at least hundreds of thousands dead over time.
The first step has to be the removal of Hamas and their replacement by something that's not as rabid.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 25, 2023, 06:07:34 PMThe Israelis dropped leaflets at the beginning of the assault warning Gazans to evacuate south of wadi al whatever. Later on they said they would use a grid system and warn Gazans to evacuate certain grids on certain days.
What I have not seen any reporting on, and would very much like to see, is to what extent Gazans have taken those warnings to heart and evacuated those areas.
There's been reporting on the evacuation routes and particular subsequent attacks on the evacuation area, which I imagine impacts take-up.. For example CNN (one of the only Western media to have managed to get reporters into Gaza):
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/16/middleeast/israel-palestinian-evacuation-orders-invs/index.html
I believe the latest estimates in Gaza are that around 80-90% of the population are displaced. I'm not clear if the grid system is plausible in that context (especially when the grid numbers change regularly).
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 25, 2023, 06:16:06 PMThere's been reporting on the evacuation routes and particular subsequent attacks on the evacuation area, which I imagine impacts take-up.. For example CNN (one of the only Western media to have managed to get reporters into Gaza):
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/16/middleeast/israel-palestinian-evacuation-orders-invs/index.html
I believe the latest estimates in Gaza are that around 80-90% of the population are displaced. I'm not clear if the grid system is plausible in that context (especially when the grid numbers change regularly).
I would still like to see some reporting on the extent to which Gazans evacuated.
Reporting on Gaza is really difficult. Western media are really struggling to get permission from Israel or Egypt to get people in - CNN are one of the only who have people on the ground. And the casualties for reporters is very high for a conflict (about 30 a month) which makes reporting very difficult.
We know they're displaced, we know there's been multiple reports of Israeli attacks on evacuation corridors or evacuation grids. Beyond that we don't have much a lot of what I've seen from, say the NYT, is sort of analysis of satellite images. We can get a bit of info from the UN who are on the ground.
I think there's a tension here. It's really, really difficult to get reporting from Gaza for various reasons - primarily getting in and the risk to journalists and the main reporters in there are Palestinian working Arab press agencies which are open to doubt; at the same time we want detailed information to assess the "real" impact on civilians or if they're doing all they could but that means the information will come from Hamas run ministries at worst or the UN at best, which means it is open to doubt. And in the absence of some "independently verifiable" truth, people's biases will prevail.
Quote from: Jacob on December 25, 2023, 05:50:46 PM@Threviel - I think that other argument against Israel's response is that the tens of thousands of Palestinian children do not deserve to suffer in this conflict. That they are innocent and that no level of provocation justifies making children suffer.
Essentially it is allowing Hamas' blackmail from hiding behind civilians be effective. The argument is that Hamas' atrocities do not justify harming children even if Hamas hides behind them.
Children never deserve to suffer yet children always suffer in conflict (well almost every conflict). It sounds harsh, but children suffering is not enough of a reason to stop conflicts. If it was ISIS would still be a state, Iraq would still rule Kuwait, the Germans would still rule France and Confederacy would still be whipping slaves.
With ISIS we were supporting the Iraqi government re-assert their sovereignty in their own country; in Kuwait we were kicking out an invading and occupying force; in Germany we were the occupying force; and the civil war was forcibly re-unifying a country (with occupation that sadly failed). But the point in all cases was that the military action was able to deliver the political outcome/goal (and was a plausible route to it) and, I'd argue that generally to that objective the civilian deaths were proportionate.
What is the Israeli plan for Gaza? Because war isn't an end in itself.
The goal is to remove Hamas, which is fine. The Israeli ambassador to the UK has said is absolutely no to a two state solution or a role for the PA, so I assume we can rule that out (Iraq v ISIS or Kuwait depending on how you read the PA/Hamas). As Threviel says it seems pretty unlikely that there's any prospect of international occupation (Germany).
What's left? I think you're left with long-term Israeli occupation (which seems unlikely/impossible), basically ethnic cleansing (which Israel's international partners won't permit) or in effect permanently keeping Gaza as more or less lawless/stateless/incapable of forming something like a state (again subject to international constraints - and, I suspect, unlikely to end violence from Gaza). Long-term occupation is, I think, the most defensible and least plausible of those options.
We waged war against Germany and Japan until they surrendered, at which point they stopped fighting.
What would we have done if they had not surrendered, if they had kept fighting forever?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 25, 2023, 07:17:36 PMWe waged war against Germany and Japan until they surrendered, at which point they stopped fighting.
What would we have done if they had not surrendered, if they had kept fighting forever?
We would have divided them with the Soviets and imposed occupying forces and put down any ongoing resistance with differing degrees of severity. I think it's very diffierent in apan but practically in Germany's case I think the legal formal surrender by Doenitz is of 0 impact on what happens next.
This is not the first war since 1945 when you can say fighting against a non-state entity is difficult. I think away from Gaza specifically if our baseline for wars is an expectation that the enemy will unconditionally surrender on an aircraft carrier, then I think we'll keep losing them.
Edit: Incidentally this is why I think it will utlimately end up leading back to a two state solution and strengthening a form of Palestinian state to govern Gaza and suppress Hamas. It's just the long route with a lot of civilian deaths in the meantime.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 25, 2023, 07:17:36 PMWe waged war against Germany and Japan until they surrendered, at which point they stopped fighting.
What would we have done if they had not surrendered, if they had kept fighting forever?
There were resistance movements in Germany, albeit minor, long past the official surrender by Doenitz. Elsewhere in the occupied German territories, the war also continued for a while until the Soviets killed everyone who talked back.
Is that a plausible scenario for Palestine? Is that the
desired scenario?
It kinda looks like the movie The Patriot where they shoot unarmed soldiers who threw their weapons and they say they didn't know they would surrender because they didn't say so.
Israel is intent on taking the territory. It does not want peace. I don't know what kind of surrender is expected here. People should pack and move? Where?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 25, 2023, 11:13:25 AMQuote from: Josquius on December 25, 2023, 05:11:23 AMNobody (of relevance and not themselves horrid) doubts Hamas and co are evil fuckers. That's never been the debate.
Plenty of Palestinians do not see Hamas as evil fuckers. We can see that in the survey results.
Plenty of others accept the logic that 40 years of occupation inevitably led to the October 7 attack. Implicitly that means they are not evil fuckers.
You can, in fact, accept the logic of occupation leading to the attack, and still consider Hamas evil fuckers for how they did it. Same as you can support Israel's right to exist and still consider Bibi's government evil fuckers for what they are doing.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 25, 2023, 01:17:53 PMQuote from: Josquius on December 25, 2023, 10:03:40 AMQuote from: Razgovory on December 25, 2023, 09:57:54 AMThe head of the labor party was keen on Hamas. Mélenchon in France refuses to condemn Hamas along with his party. We've had several American politicians refuse to condemn Hamas as well.
One by one
1: pure lie
2: a guy whose best showing was a lucky third in the French election refuses to condemn them?
Falls short of both being someone of relevance and in actually supporting them.
3: again plenty of reasons why someone might not want to join the 5 minutes of hate other than thinking Hamas are swell actually. And pretty sure none of these handful of politicians are particularly prominent.
Corbyn having "friends" in Hamas is a "pure lie"? Oh, you are sure that these American politicians who refused to denounce Hamas are not prominent. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez was one of them. You heard of her?
It says here "I condemn Hamas' attack in the strongest possible terms." This is from October 9th.
https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/statement-rep-ocasio-cortez-violence-israel-and-palestine
Quote from: Solmyr on December 26, 2023, 05:21:40 AMhttps://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/statement-rep-ocasio-cortez-violence-israel-and-palestine
December 8, 1941
Press Release
"Today is devastating for all those seeking a lasting peace and respect for human rights in the Pacific. I condemn the Japanese Empire's attack in the strongest possible terms. No one should ever endure this kind of violence and fear, and this violence will not solve the ongoing economic coercion of Japan. An immediate ceasefire and de-escalation is urgently needed to save lives."
How would Americans have reacted to that message in 1941?
I don't think it's a good comparison. Imo, it would be better comparison if it was a text from September 20 1931
Quote from: Solmyr on December 26, 2023, 05:21:40 AMQuote from: Razgovory on December 25, 2023, 01:17:53 PMQuote from: Josquius on December 25, 2023, 10:03:40 AMQuote from: Razgovory on December 25, 2023, 09:57:54 AMThe head of the labor party was keen on Hamas. Mélenchon in France refuses to condemn Hamas along with his party. We've had several American politicians refuse to condemn Hamas as well.
One by one
1: pure lie
2: a guy whose best showing was a lucky third in the French election refuses to condemn them?
Falls short of both being someone of relevance and in actually supporting them.
3: again plenty of reasons why someone might not want to join the 5 minutes of hate other than thinking Hamas are swell actually. And pretty sure none of these handful of politicians are particularly prominent.
Corbyn having "friends" in Hamas is a "pure lie"? Oh, you are sure that these American politicians who refused to denounce Hamas are not prominent. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez was one of them. You heard of her?
It says here "I condemn Hamas' attack in the strongest possible terms." This is from October 9th.
https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/statement-rep-ocasio-cortez-violence-israel-and-palestine
There was a glorious trainwreck of an "interview" with Pierce Morgan a month or so ago. Corbyn managed to make the third guy in the room, the ex-Unite leader thug look like a reasonable middle-ground kind of guy. Morgan wanted Corbyn to confirm Hamas is a terrorist organisation. He would not.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 26, 2023, 10:08:40 AMDecember 8, 1941
Press Release
"Today is devastating for all those seeking a lasting peace and respect for human rights in the Pacific. I condemn the Japanese Empire's attack in the strongest possible terms. No one should ever endure this kind of violence and fear, and this violence will not solve the ongoing economic coercion of Japan. An immediate ceasefire and de-escalation is urgently needed to save lives."
How would Americans have reacted to that message in 1941?
Sure - but it's not true to say she didn't condemn Hamas. More generally I think there's a pretty big difference between Corbyn or Melenchon (who also refused to join the march against anti-semittism) and the American left like AOC, Sanders etc.
QuoteThere was a glorious trainwreck of an "interview" with Pierce Morgan a month or so ago. Corbyn managed to make the third guy in the room, the ex-Unite leader thug look like a reasonable middle-ground kind of guy. Morgan wanted Corbyn to confirm Hamas is a terrorist organisation. He would not.
Yeah - Len McCluskey who is a big backer of Corbyn (they were promoting their new book of poetry). Corbyn has a history of similar attitudes and statements about the IRA too.
Ultimately I think more than anything it was national security and tolerance of anti-semitism that led to people voting against Corbyn - and imagining him as PM responding to Ukraine or Gaza makes it very hard for me to say they got that choice wrong.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 26, 2023, 11:45:13 AMSure - but it's not true to say she didn't condemn Hamas.
She condemned "Hamas' attack" but not Hamas itself. The statement as a whole veers dangerously towards blaming the victim. At best one could argue it is naive, but that never struck me as a deficiency of AOC.
QuoteMore generally I think there's a pretty big difference between Corbyn or Melenchon (who also refused to join the march against anti-semittism) and the American left like AOC, Sanders etc.
Of course but that is setting a very low bar.
I suppose it could be considered a source of pride that no elected US official has joined Rashida Tlaib in chanting from the river to the sea.
Quote from: Tamas on December 26, 2023, 10:59:06 AMQuote from: Solmyr on December 26, 2023, 05:21:40 AMQuote from: Razgovory on December 25, 2023, 01:17:53 PMQuote from: Josquius on December 25, 2023, 10:03:40 AMQuote from: Razgovory on December 25, 2023, 09:57:54 AMThe head of the labor party was keen on Hamas. Mélenchon in France refuses to condemn Hamas along with his party. We've had several American politicians refuse to condemn Hamas as well.
One by one
1: pure lie
2: a guy whose best showing was a lucky third in the French election refuses to condemn them?
Falls short of both being someone of relevance and in actually supporting them.
3: again plenty of reasons why someone might not want to join the 5 minutes of hate other than thinking Hamas are swell actually. And pretty sure none of these handful of politicians are particularly prominent.
Corbyn having "friends" in Hamas is a "pure lie"? Oh, you are sure that these American politicians who refused to denounce Hamas are not prominent. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez was one of them. You heard of her?
It says here "I condemn Hamas' attack in the strongest possible terms." This is from October 9th.
https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/statement-rep-ocasio-cortez-violence-israel-and-palestine
There was a glorious trainwreck of an "interview" with Pierce Morgan a month or so ago. Corbyn managed to make the third guy in the room, the ex-Unite leader thug look like a reasonable middle-ground kind of guy. Morgan wanted Corbyn to confirm Hamas is a terrorist organisation. He would not.
Morgan and Corbyn are both kooks who deserve each other. :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 25, 2023, 05:21:14 PMNot quite sure how the IDF can remove Hamas - and I think that's being borne out.
This is a false question--and a common one. There is no real goal to remove Hamas--the goal is to deny them administrative control over Gaza. That is basically happening as we speak. In fact I question how much of Gaza Hamas still has effective administrative control over as we speak. Basically none in the north, and they are under heavy siege everywhere in the South.
It is akin to ISIS--there is no complexity in the question "can Mosul be taken from ISIS", the answer is: yes. Militaries largely exist to take and occupy land. There is zero point zero doubt the IDF can take and occupy Gaza.
Just as the removal of ISIS occupation of various cities didn't cause ISIS to cease to exist, neither does taking Gaza from Hamas--but what it does do, as it did with ISIS, is removes from its control a large swathe of territory. Terror groups that
de facto control territory are far worse in most every respect than ones who only operate as underground groups.
Quote from: Jacob on December 25, 2023, 05:50:46 PM@Threviel - I think that other argument against Israel's response is that the tens of thousands of Palestinian children do not deserve to suffer in this conflict. That they are innocent and that no level of provocation justifies making children suffer.
Essentially it is allowing Hamas' blackmail from hiding behind civilians be effective. The argument is that Hamas' atrocities do not justify harming children even if Hamas hides behind them.
If you can't kill children you can't fight wars. Which would mean the countries that don't want to kill children would cede every war, every aggression, to the countries that do.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 25, 2023, 06:16:06 PMI believe the latest estimates in Gaza are that around 80-90% of the population are displaced. I'm not clear if the grid system is plausible in that context (especially when the grid numbers change regularly).
All the reporting I have seen is the grids don't really work. Probably a decent thing to try, but just literally not possible to implement. Yes, the IDF has grids, yes they warn on those grids.
The issue is most Palestinians don't have live, up-to-date grid maps, internet connection is spotty so they can't regularly refresh them. And for that reason most people in Gaza don't really know what grid they are in, and don't have the technological access needed to know when that grid is subject to warnings.
It is a complex technical system and people basically living in rubble eating uncooked flour and rice and the occasional can of tuna are not equipped to follow it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 25, 2023, 07:12:40 PMWhat's left? I think you're left with long-term Israeli occupation (which seems unlikely/impossible), basically ethnic cleansing (which Israel's international partners won't permit) or in effect permanently keeping Gaza as more or less lawless/stateless/incapable of forming something like a state (again subject to international constraints - and, I suspect, unlikely to end violence from Gaza). Long-term occupation is, I think, the most defensible and least plausible of those options.
There are political reasons that neither Netanyahu or his coalition can easily stake out a position on this--all of the real options create political problems for the coalition. There probably won't be real clarity until after the coalition falls apart and Israel has elections again.
The reasonable, and fairly obvious, path we are on is a long term Israeli occupation--likely one that the Israeli politicians will labor to describe in different terms.
The current coalition simply can't withdraw and leave Gaza to its own devices--that will fracture and implode them.
They also can't hand over to PA for similar reasons, and they can't openly admit they are going to do some sort of long term occupation.
That leaves the likely scenario--a form of longer term occupation that exists in a definitional gray area, likely until the coalition in Israel breaks and an election is held, most likely the parties in that election will have as a major component of their platforms a specific position on how Gaza is to be handled.
Quote from: Threviel on December 25, 2023, 04:57:23 PMI have been thinking a bit about how a reasonable individual can argue against the war. There are probably lots of ways, but this is what I've been thinking.
I argue that the extreme violence, the meditated methods of it and the form it took removes all rights of the Hamas state to exist in its present form. They need to be removed at all reasonable cost.
Yes. Really Israel should have took notice of this earlier. The looking the other way/possible support for Hamas really bit them in the arse with dire consequences.
QuoteBetween those two are arguments that this should be resolved diplomatically. In real terms that means that Hamas rule will continue and that they will win a huge propaganda victory. In real terms any argument here means that you are a supporter of Hamas rule.
Depends how you define resolve diplomatically.
By now things are way too far gone down a different path of course. But if in response to the attacks Israel had took an approach of reaching out to the Palestinian authority and asking them for help with bringing back hostages, sorting out the criminals, etc.... there's definitely a way they could have smartly played it democratically in a way to have not created 'the Palestine vs. Israel situation' Israel has turned it into, and rather more of an 'evil murderous fuckers in the region vs. everyone else who is so sick of their shit', choose a side situation .
There was still going to be fighting of course, but then the choice is never diplomacy vs. action. Both need to be involved and you want to play the diplomatic angle as well as possible to make the action easier and less bloody.
With the current Israeli government of course that was never going to happen and its really going off into alternate history territory.
Quote2. Popular revolution/democratic vote removes Hamas.
The Gazans are massively behind Hamas and support them. No popular revolution is coming.
Needs noting this is only the case due to the massive Israeli campaign against Gaza prompting rally behind the flag feelings. Previously support for Hamas was very much in the minority.
Also define popular revolution. Any solution will need to involve someone from Palestine in charge unless Israel really does plan conquest.
QuoteNot going to happen, no-one wants to touch this with a 100m pole. That would also probably mean foreign troops doing what the IDF is doing now.
That leaves us with two options. Hamas stays or IDF removes them.
Which more or less makes everyones choice a hell. Either you in practice support Hamas or you in practice support Israel. You might argue that you only want peace and love, and think of the poor children, but in practice that's a vote on Hamas as rulers of Gaza. And you might say bullshit and that nothing is black or white and I would almost always agree, but in this case it's rather more black and white than usual.
For myself I'm not overly fond of Israeli politics these last decades and would they kindly fuck off back to their own country and stop settling Palestinian lands. But there's just no way in hell I would support Hamas over them.
(You in this case addressed to no-one in particular)
See this is the problem in the logic of so many that really frustrates me.
Seeing the only options as being do nothing and let Hamas get away with murder or do everything exactly as Israel is doing now; Any criticism of Israeli actions means you support doing nothing and are a pro-Hamas anti-semite, etc... etc....
I'm not following this war particularly closely. The whole thing is just so stupid and depressing, even taken alone let alone for how its fucking up more serious issues elsewhere, and at the best of times I'm not really into the minutia of military operations. So don't ask me for specific details here- that I'm not going to give them doesn't mean someone competent couldn't.
But there do seem to be so many ways Israel could have been far less brutal in their campaign. Less levelling of civilian areas, more allowance for humanitarian aid, taking a far more slow and steady approach to wiping out Hamas facilities, actually having a clue about what they're doing in Gaza beyond "Die Hamas Die"- that there's not been any hint about how they see things going when the campaign is done is seriously worrying.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 27, 2023, 10:12:15 AMThis is a false question--and a common one. There is no real goal to remove Hamas--the goal is to deny them administrative control over Gaza. That is basically happening as we speak. In fact I question how much of Gaza Hamas still has effective administrative control over as we speak. Basically none in the north, and they are under heavy siege everywhere in the South.
It is akin to ISIS--there is no complexity in the question "can Mosul be taken from ISIS", the answer is: yes. Militaries largely exist to take and occupy land. There is zero point zero doubt the IDF can take and occupy Gaza.
Just as the removal of ISIS occupation of various cities didn't cause ISIS to cease to exist, neither does taking Gaza from Hamas--but what it does do, as it did with ISIS, is removes from its control a large swathe of territory. Terror groups that de facto control territory are far worse in most every respect than ones who only operate as underground groups.
Yeah. I think that's fair - I do think there's more to it than just removing Hamas' administrative control over Gaza. For example, as Joshi pointed out, the senior leadership has not been severely hit so far. The combat power has taken a big hit. It's more mixed on the tunnels. I think that is enough for Hamas to come back and at least challenge whoever has power in Gaza.
This leads to the point of what is Israel intending to do because it is not juust destroying Hamas' administrative - but ensuring Hamas are not able to rebuild it.
QuoteIt is a complex technical system and people basically living in rubble eating uncooked flour and rice and the occasional can of tuna are not equipped to follow it.
I agree I think ultimately it's for Western consumption or to build a defensible case that you've taken all reasonable steps to avoid/mitigate civilian casualties. It's a consolation if you'll take it, not a meaningful way of reducing civilian deaths.
QuoteThere are political reasons that neither Netanyahu or his coalition can easily stake out a position on this--all of the real options create political problems for the coalition. There probably won't be real clarity until after the coalition falls apart and Israel has elections again.
The reasonable, and fairly obvious, path we are on is a long term Israeli occupation--likely one that the Israeli politicians will labor to describe in different terms.
The current coalition simply can't withdraw and leave Gaza to its own devices--that will fracture and implode them.
They also can't hand over to PA for similar reasons, and they can't openly admit they are going to do some sort of long term occupation.
That leaves the likely scenario--a form of longer term occupation that exists in a definitional gray area, likely until the coalition in Israel breaks and an election is held, most likely the parties in that election will have as a major component of their platforms a specific position on how Gaza is to be handled.
Yeah there is huge demand for an election as soon as the "war" is over and the national unity coalition steps aside. The polling is that Likud's support has collapsed over 50-60% want Netanyahu gone. Add to that the anecdotal stuff of family members of victims chasing ministers out of hospitals, not wanting to speak to Netanyahu or the report that 15 of 17 wounded soldiers did not want to meet Netanyahu in a visit (which resulted in the PM's office issuing an extraordinary statement that the report was untrue and "an absolute majority" of the soldiers were pleased to see him).
Because of that I'm less sure the coalition will collapse. It's been said many times before but it feels like an election would be the end of Netanyahu's career. The golden thread running through his premiership is his will to survive and his skill at it. I think he will do whatever it takes to stay in office until an election is legally necessary - and that will mean doing whatever his coalition partners want. I suspect Israel's politics and society will become even more fractious and divided - and you're probably right that on top of that, for the short to medium term at least, that will also involve a new occupation (and I can't help but suspect that his coalition partner's price for occupation will be settlements in Gaza again).
And I think Gaza is a far more dangerous and difficult place for occupation so there will be all of the problems that led Sharon to force the settlements out. I don't think it will or can be sustainable - and practically I query how much the IDF can do if it is engaged in full occupation of two million people in Gaza and defending provocations by settlers in the West Bank. That feels potentially quite brittle and vulnerable to a surprise.
See, that's a reasoned response Jos, well done. I agree with most of what you said.
The conduct of the war seems to leave a lot to be wished for, but like you I don't follow the day to day very closely, so I don't think I can point to particulars.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2023, 06:56:17 AMThis leads to the point of what is Israel intending to do because it is not juust destroying Hamas' administrative - but ensuring Hamas are not able to rebuild it.
My suspicion is a large part of the next 3-6 months will be rendering the tunnels unusable in various ways. While not at all an expert analysis, my gut tells me that timeline is about how long the active phase of the "war" will go on.
Once that reaches a point of Israeli satisfaction, my guess is the occupation phase begins.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2023, 06:56:17 AMAnd I think Gaza is a far more dangerous and difficult place for occupation so there will be all of the problems that led Sharon to force the settlements out. I don't think it will or can be sustainable - and practically I query how much the IDF can do if it is engaged in full occupation of two million people in Gaza and defending provocations by settlers in the West Bank. That feels potentially quite brittle and vulnerable to a surprise.
Yeah, if I had to guess IDF / war cabinet is trying to game out a form of "occupation on the cheap", what that looks like I don't know.
After the Oslo Accords in '94, Israel turned over civil administration of the urban areas in the strip to the PA, and withdrew the IDF to military bases inside the strip, but at the perimeter in rural areas (e.g. they were no longer actively policing the cities.) This is likely a more sustainable form of "occupation", but of course the current Israeli coalition isn't open to PA control of the strip--so there is no party able to step into the role that Arafat's PA did in '94.
My guess is the Israeli "occupation" will be a somewhat haphazard affair they "muddle through."
I don't believe Israeli politics is going to allow a full withdrawal to the other side of the border and just pretend nothing happened like in prior wars with Hamas. But as you say, I don't see Israel wanting to reestablish the scope of the 1967-94 efforts where it ran a full military governorate and had to provide all services--police, emergency, medical, educational, defense etc to the strip.
None of the things I can think of sound like good plans, and I wonder if Israel's leaders basically know that--there is no good option, so they are just going to muddle through for a time until political realities change.
Something I don't see talked about enough is that
Gaza is fucked up real bad in terms of physical infrastructure, there is going to have to be a huge humanitarian effort when the active fighting ends to rebuild to some level of habitability basically the entirety of the strip. Who is going to pay for that?
Do we know the way in which grid warnings are being transmitted? I know the first set of warnings in the north were delivered by leaflet. I agree setting up a website would be pretty boneheaded.
Largely social media posts:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-21/israel-gaza-map-blocks-warning-system-contradictory/103187116
Thanks.
Now I'm reconsidering my internet boneheaded position. People still have phones. The comments are about confusion and misinformation, not about failure to receive the message.
Though for the umpteenth time I wonder how cell phones continue to operate in war zones.
They may have phones, but do the phones have coverage? I'm not sure that's a safe assumption.
Quote from: Jacob on December 28, 2023, 08:47:19 PMThey may have phones, but do the phones have coverage? I'm not sure that's a safe assumption.
Beats me. Let's find out.
The reporting I had seen suggested poor internet connectivity on their mobile devices was a specific problem. I think they sometimes have service, they sometimes don't. I also think many of them can't reliably recharge their phones every day, so may have times when they are powered down.
Quote from: Josquius on December 28, 2023, 03:58:21 AMNeeds noting this is only the case due to the massive Israeli campaign against Gaza prompting rally behind the flag feelings. Previously support for Hamas was very much in the minority.
It's the other way around.
Support skyrocketed because Hamas successfully killed Jews. It is in fact higher in the West Bank and lower in Gaza (which is actually facing the consequences of that raid).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFNp_gyykqc
Congratulations to these protestors for their civility.
A month or so ago the Guardian had a report on some (Bedouin, African, can't remember) shepherds in the West Bank being systemically bullied out by Israeli settlers. Needless to say these things are evil and will prevent any sort of peace. Also, the photos of where the speherds lived and how, made me think the closest comparison to what's happening there is what happened with the american natives and how the US settlers kept pushing them out.
Quote from: Tamas on December 31, 2023, 08:39:20 AMA month or so ago the Guardian had a report on some (Bedouin, African, can't remember) shepherds in the West Bank being systemically bullied out by Israeli settlers. Needless to say these things are evil and will prevent any sort of peace. Also, the photos of where the speherds lived and how, made me think the closest comparison to what's happening there is what happened with the american natives and how the US settlers kept pushing them out.
Slightly different but I'd also add the ongoing push by settlers in Jerusalem in the Armenian Quarter:
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/crime-in-israel/article-779881
Quote from: Tamas on December 31, 2023, 08:39:20 AMA month or so ago the Guardian had a report on some (Bedouin, African, can't remember) shepherds in the West Bank being systemically bullied out by Israeli settlers. Needless to say these things are evil and will prevent any sort of peace. Also, the photos of where the speherds lived and how, made me think the closest comparison to what's happening there is what happened with the american natives and how the US settlers kept pushing them out.
Other comparisons would be the range wars in the western US between farmers and ranchers and the unrest between ranchers grazing on leased land the feds.
Quote from: Tamas on December 31, 2023, 08:39:20 AMA month or so ago the Guardian had a report on some (Bedouin, African, can't remember) shepherds in the West Bank being systemically bullied out by Israeli settlers. Needless to say these things are evil and will prevent any sort of peace. Also, the photos of where the speherds lived and how, made me think the closest comparison to what's happening there is what happened with the american natives and how the US settlers kept pushing them out.
The Settlers are just pretty much allowed to do whatever. It is ridiculous. The PA lacks the ability to do much about them and the Israeli government lacks the will.
Quote from: Valmy on December 31, 2023, 07:37:48 PMQuote from: Tamas on December 31, 2023, 08:39:20 AMA month or so ago the Guardian had a report on some (Bedouin, African, can't remember) shepherds in the West Bank being systemically bullied out by Israeli settlers. Needless to say these things are evil and will prevent any sort of peace. Also, the photos of where the speherds lived and how, made me think the closest comparison to what's happening there is what happened with the american natives and how the US settlers kept pushing them out.
The Settlers are just pretty much allowed to do whatever. It is ridiculous. The PA lacks the ability to do much about them and the Israeli government lacks the will.
Can't Blue Byte do a patch to fix this? :D
Ultra orthodox contribution to the battle for hearts and minds.
Good YT posting work, Yi. :)
:punk:
Protest during Senate hearing on Ukraine/Israel aid.
Israel still trying to evict Palestinians from Gaza (https://www.lapresse.ca/international/moyen-orient/2024-01-03/des-allies-d-israel-rejettent-le-deplacement-des-palestiniens-de-la-bande-de-gaza.php)
Text in French.
Again, the talk is to send Palestinians to Canada. Picking a country that is likely to say yes to a large number of refugees coming in, unlikely to threaten Israel with any kind of retaliation, economic or otherwise.
Maybe we should agree to some. 10 000 in Côte St-Luc (Montréal), 6 000 in Westmount, about 50k in Toronto, around Bathurst Street.
We will do our part. But we will ask B'nai Brith to found part of the effort and work toward the acculturation of the new community to Canadian values in the name of peace and tolerance.
They talk a lot about the racism of Canadians and Québécois, so I'm sure they'll show us how open and tolerant their communities can be. :)
Hamas leader - 3rd in the military chain of command apparently - assassinated in Beirut. Hezbollah is not pleased.
I can't see any country agreeing to take in a large number of Palestinian refugees to allow Israel to ethnically cleanse Gaza.
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2024, 08:30:35 PMI can't see any country agreeing to take in a large number of Palestinian refugees to allow Israel to ethnically cleanse Gaza.
Once Israel has pushed them out into a tiny corner of the strip, and once they decide they embark them on boats or planes for wherever they may go, countries will have a choice: look even worst than Israel or accept the refugees.
We did get the flak for not taking in more Syrian refugees and not doing more to protect them in Syria. Syrian refugees did not find refuge in Israel or in the Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar or UAE. Neither of these countries sent their troops to Syria either, IIRC.
I don't think that's how it'll play out, but I suppose we'll see.
People would rather admire the Palestinians from afar. Ask the Lebanese and the Jordanians what happens when you admire them close up.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2024, 09:59:19 PMPeople would rather admire the Palestinians from afar. Ask the Lebanese and the Jordanians what happens when you admire them close up.
It's a legitimate moral question. Civilians leaving Gaza creates new "facts on the ground" in the same way the West Bank settlements do. They change the status quo.
Why did no Palestinian refugees ever flee to Syria? :unsure:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2024, 09:59:19 PMPeople would rather admire the Palestinians from afar. Ask the Lebanese and the Jordanians what happens when you admire them close up.
It would also be participating in ethnic cleansing.
Which is broadly where Smotrich and Ben Gvir's statements point - again the US has even more forcefully rejected this.
Words like ethnic cleansing and genocide are so unhelpful to this debate.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 03, 2024, 10:13:54 PMWords like ethnic cleansing and genocide are so unhelpful to this debate.
This is the statement from the State Department - again they've repeatedly emphasised this point as have Egypt (who were reportedly sked to "resettle" Palestinians from Gaza and there have been articles in the Israeli press advocating Sinai as a "home"):
QuoteU.S. State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller on Rejection of Irresponsible Statements on Resettlement of Palestinians Outside of Gaza
The United States rejects recent statements from Israeli Ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir advocating for the resettlement of Palestinians outside of Gaza. This rhetoric is inflammatory and irresponsible. We have been told repeatedly and consistently by the Government of Israel, including by the Prime Minister, that such statements do not reflect the policy of the Israeli government. They should stop immediately.
We have been clear, consistent, and unequivocal that Gaza is Palestinian land and will remain Palestinian land, with Hamas no longer in control of its future and with no terror groups able to threaten Israel. That is the future we seek, in the interests of Israelis and Palestinians, the surrounding region, and the world.
The statements being referred to are Smotrich calling for "willful emigration" as well as "not only do I not rule out Jewish settlement there, I believe it is also an important thing". Ben Gvir has said the war presents an "opportunity to concentrate on encouraging the migration of the residents of Gaza", which allies have called "correct, just, moral and humane". That "opportunity" is a different conflict from one against Hamas.
I agree with you that it's not helpful. But it is also important not to weasel word away from a reality, as Orwell's line has it there's a power of facing. Maybe "population transfer" is more helpful - but it is also just a euphemism. When there's "willful emigration" on one side and bombs on the other it's forced dportation not willful, language that it's in order to allow the settlement of another population which is an "opportunity" - we should call that what it is. And if a country is volunteering to "resettle" Palestinians, then they're participating. It's why this is a line the US has repeatedly said must not be crossed (as have Egypt, the most likely destination).
I'd add I also think it's insane given the extraordinary survival of Palestinian national identity (which has, if anything, strengthened in the absence of a national state) to think this would somehow solve Israel's problems. It would move it and further internationalise it.
Edit: And I'd add that I think this is the same standard that was applied in Armenia (speaking of extraordinarily resilient national identities). The Azeris were not literally forcing people out - but I think I called that ethnic cleansing for the same reason. I think Bidens team are absolutely right on this and there needs to be a very clear red line.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 03, 2024, 10:11:35 PMQuote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2024, 09:59:19 PMPeople would rather admire the Palestinians from afar. Ask the Lebanese and the Jordanians what happens when you admire them close up.
It would also be participating in ethnic cleansing.
Which is broadly where Smotrich and Ben Gvir's statements point - again the US has even more forcefully rejected this.
That's kind of perverse. "We can't let you into our country. That would be ethnic cleansing. You stay home, in the warzone."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 03, 2024, 10:13:54 PMWords like ethnic cleansing and genocide are so unhelpful to this debate.
If the Palestinians in Gaza are all relocated to outside of Gaza as refugees and replaced by Israeli settlements that is ethnic cleansing, by definition.
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2024, 12:13:14 AMIf the Palestinians in Gaza are all relocated to outside of Gaza as refugees and replaced by Israeli settlements that is ethnic cleansing, by definition.
Disagree. Ethnic cleansing requires coercion.
Calling what the Israelis are doing at this moment ethnic cleansing pre-adjudicates points which are all negotiable.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2024, 02:59:11 AMQuote from: Jacob on January 04, 2024, 12:13:14 AMIf the Palestinians in Gaza are all relocated to outside of Gaza as refugees and replaced by Israeli settlements that is ethnic cleansing, by definition.
Disagree. Ethnic cleansing requires coercion.
Calling what the Israelis are doing at this moment ethnic cleansing pre-adjudicates points which are all negotiable.
Whats not coercive about "get the fuck out of this area as its going to be bombed to bits"? :unsure:
What is currently happening doesn't meet the criteria yet. It could well all be temporary and once Israel goes home it's back to life as normal minus several tens of thousands of dead.
But it's certainly on a path which could go in a ethnic cleansing direction if Israel chooses the evil door.
https://warontherocks.com/2023/12/reversing-americas-ruinous-support-for-israels-assault-on-gaza/ (https://warontherocks.com/2023/12/reversing-americas-ruinous-support-for-israels-assault-on-gaza/)
Interesting editorial about how Israel mismanages the war and that the US should stop supporting them rom a reputable source.
I usually gauge criticism by the alternative paths the author proposes. In this case its an incredibly vague "A successful campaign would have been aimed at the group's main sources of political power."
What does that even mean?
Yeah, I thought the criticism is valid, but like almost every other criticizer he fails to present a realistic alternative. Without a realistic alternative the only option I see is to support Israel.
Quote from: Threviel on January 04, 2024, 06:36:18 AMYeah, I thought the criticism is valid, but like almost every other criticizer he fails to present a realistic alternative. Without a realistic alternative the only option I see is to support Israel.
Although I think his point is also valid that military action needs to be in the service of an achievable political goal - and that's not clearly the case here, in part because the Israeli leadership (I think because of divisions, but also international constraints) aren't able to articulate that turning it into a bit of a movable feast.
The piece he links to is here:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/how-israel-can-win-hamas
They broadly point out that repression can work against groups like Hamas - for example Sri Lanka was successful (despite condemnation at the time) in ending the Tamil Tigers, Peru the Shining Path and Russia in crushing domestic terrorist organisations. But they argue all of those came with costs (including, in the case of Peru and Russia, to democratic governance) and that the conditions that allowed that strategy to work isn't present in Gaza.
Their alternative is below (from 15 October) - however plausible you find this:
QuoteHOW TO WIN BY NOT LOSING
Overwhelming military oppression in Gaza would backfire, stirring support for resistance and aligning Israel's adversaries against it. A more nuanced political strategy would divide them. Israeli leaders must make clear that their enemies are the 30,000 Hamas fighters in Gaza, especially the Qassam Brigades, and not the two million other residents of Gaza. To legitimize its barbarity, Hamas has claimed that every Israeli is a combatant, just as al Qaeda and ISIS did in their campaigns in the West and in the Middle East. Israel must avoid doing the same thing and make clear that it is specifically targeting Hamas.
A successful Israeli military response would use discriminate force, making it clear through both statements and actions that Israel's enemy is Hamas, not the Palestinian people. The Israeli government should help fleeing Gazans find somewhere to go, by either creating safe zones, helping the Egyptians to do so, or permitting regional or international actors to create a humanitarian corridor, and then allowing aid organizations to supply food and water to trapped civilians. Even in the north, they must avoid targeting Gazan hospitals from which the injured cannot be moved. Hamas will use those people as human shields—and when they do, such barbarity toward their own people will sap the group's ability to mobilize wider support. The Israel Defense Forces will be fighting street to street; Hamas will not hold them off for long regardless.
No one is asking for a new Israeli-Palestinian peace process now, but Israeli leaders must stop actively encouraging West Bank settlements to expand, a process that has gradually snuffed out any hope of a two-state solution. Israel must give the Palestinian Authority a reason to stand aside during this fight; otherwise, Israel will be flanked by fighting in both Palestinian territories. Israel must lean on its international partners to urge Iran not to encourage attacks by Hezbollah. The United States has already warned Tehran and the terrorist group not to attack Israel and has sent a carrier strike force to the region to deter them and any other parties from joining the conflict. Steps such as U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken's tour of six Arab countries and discussions with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas can help, but only if Israel does not further inflame its enemies with indiscriminate killing in Gaza.
Finally, the Israelis must come together politically, not just militarily. Before the attacks, Netanyahu's efforts to weaken Israel's judiciary had divided the public and produced pushback among some military reservists and even some senior members of the security establishment, arguably making the country more vulnerable to attack. Without a clear endgame, a renewed occupation of Gaza could further split the country. Netanyahu has created an emergency unity government with one of his rivals, the former army general Benny Gantz. But Netanyahu has refused to fully sideline the far-right members of his coalition, suggesting that he is still unwilling to move past the divisive politics that paralyzed Israel and possibly invited this Hamas assault. Only a truly unified political leadership will fortify Israel's democracy for the difficult military operations ahead, giving it the domestic mandate necessary to build a winning strategy and end Hamas for good.
I think the point on striking political power makes me think of Joshi's assessment which I posted earlier - at that point a couple of weeks ago Israel had had pretty limited success in actually striking the Hamas leadership (but considerably more success in killing Hamas fighters and some more success in dismantling the tunnel network in the north at least). I think they've killed a senior leader in the last few days but it is striking that broadly they're still struggling to actually get the leadership.
My suspicion is that this goes back to the status of Gaza and also to the over-confidence of Israel before 7 October. I think there's two sides to that one is basically the tech solution to Hamas which was Iron Dome, drones etc that gave a false sense of confidence that Hamas were nullified. But I've read that Israel was also very confident that they knew what was going on in Gaza through intelligence sources and with 7 October realised they didn't have the intelligence they thought. I think part of the challenge with killing the senior leadership is actually that Israel's intelligence in Gaza is a lot weaker than they expected - which is also why they're pushed to less discriminate methods because the information to discriminate is less or less reliable than they'd thought.
I suspect that's a consequence of not being an occupying force anymore which goes to the question of the status of Gaza. Because either Israel needs to be in a position to have sources and truly monitor what's going on in Gaza which would require long-term occupation and all of its consequences - or they need someone else who can do that for them. But I don't think you can just lean on the tech solution and I think it's probably very challenging to have that type of intelligence gathering without having some form of presence on the ground.
That piece seems to imply the IDF would still be assaulting Gaza, which is where most of the casualties come from. So I can't see that much of a real difference. You could argue the IDF should put less value on its troops and more on Palestinian civilians, but honestly that's rather naive.
As for the West Bank thing, even if the government wanted to (they don't) you don't make any concession after a massacre. That would legitimize what happened on Oct 7.
I'm a little skeptical that if the war keeps running as it does Hamas leaders in Gaza don't end up dead or captured. This isn't Afghanistan where they have a huge and rugged country to hide in, and nearby Pakistan to dip into if things get too tight. This is more like the Fuhrerbunker in Berlin '45 situation, there really is nowhere for them to go.
Hamas political leadership outside Gaza is obviously harder to get to, but IMO they are actually less of a concern in many respects. There is a lot of evidence that there is a major ideological rift between Hamas political leadership--largely who live outside Gaza and who have internally advocated for basically become a competitor to Fatah and even open to negotiations with Israel, and the military leadership who live inside Gaza and basically believe in apocalyptic war.
Getting the more moderate leaders who aren't part of Hamas military operations isn't actually that important.
In regards to expelling Gazans--that is obviously a nonstarter. The Times of Israel initially broke the story that elements inside of Israel's government were negotiating with countries to do this, but the Times of Israel shortly after broke another story with another Israeli government source (unnamed) who basically said that it is bullshit and just delusions by a certain faction inside the government. My guess is the Ben-Gvir and Smotrich faction really want this to happen, and everyone else in the coalition simply understands it isn't politically feasible and not a real idea.
On a meta level, I do actually support Gazan refugees being allowed to permanently emigrate from Gaza; but it is important that they want to do that versus be forced by Israel. A big criticism of the UNRWA (the refugee entity at the UN that manages refugees only for the Israel-Palestine conflict, the UNHCR manages all other refugee efforts of the UN), is that it is actually designed to keep Palestinians as "permanent refugees." Largely contributing to the "frozen conflict."
This has made it hard for Israel to "win" the conflict, but it has also doomed millions of Palestinians to not only living out their lives as poor refugees, but doomed their children to inherit that status. That is way out of line with how all other refugees are handled, who are intended to assimilate into their host countries, and whose children are generally not supposed to "inherit" refugee status when they are born in the host country.
I think there is a strong argument for opening up the normal refugee process to all Palestinians who are interested (even those in the West Bank.)
How many would actually go--knowing that it means they, in a small way on an individual level, are permanently ceding ground to Israel, is hard to say. But Palestine's conflict with Israel is their business, the international community IMO has no place forcing Palestinians to remain as permanent refugees in contravention to how virtually all other refugees handled by the UN are created.
Now, refugees handled by other entities (like say, Pakistan or Turkiye) have regularly been kept as permanent refugees as well, but most people agree that isn't a good situation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2024, 02:59:11 AMDisagree. Ethnic cleansing requires coercion.
Calling what the Israelis are doing at this moment ethnic cleansing pre-adjudicates points which are all negotiable.
I'm not calling what they're doing
now ethnic cleansing. I'm saying that if the majority of Gazans are driven from Gaza and replaced by Israeli settlers, that is ethnic cleansing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 03, 2024, 10:09:00 PMWhy did no Palestinian refugees ever flee to Syria? :unsure:
According to Wiki, pre-Syrian-Civil War, Syria had 500k Palestinian refugees.
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2024, 11:10:26 AMI'm not calling what they're doing now ethnic cleansing. I'm saying that if the majority of Gazans are driven from Gaza and replaced by Israeli settlers, that is ethnic cleansing.
If driven means coerced, I agree with you.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2024, 05:32:56 PMIf driven means coerced, I agree with you.
Excellent :cheers:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 03, 2024, 10:40:25 PMThe statements being referred to are Smotrich calling for "willful emigration" as well as "not only do I not rule out Jewish settlement there, I believe it is also an important thing". Ben Gvir has said the war presents an "opportunity to concentrate on encouraging the migration of the residents of Gaza", which allies have called "correct, just, moral and humane". That "opportunity" is a different conflict from one against Hamas.
I agree with you that it's not helpful. But it is also important not to weasel word away from a reality, as Orwell's line has it there's a power of facing. Maybe "population transfer" is more helpful - but it is also just a euphemism. When there's "willful emigration" on one side and bombs on the other it's forced dportation not willful, language that it's in order to allow the settlement of another population which is an "opportunity" - we should call that what it is. And if a country is volunteering to "resettle" Palestinians, then they're participating. It's why this is a line the US has repeatedly said must not be crossed (as have Egypt, the most likely destination).
I'd add I also think it's insane given the extraordinary survival of Palestinian national identity (which has, if anything, strengthened in the absence of a national state) to think this would somehow solve Israel's problems. It would move it and further internationalise it.
Edit: And I'd add that I think this is the same standard that was applied in Armenia (speaking of extraordinarily resilient national identities). The Azeris were not literally forcing people out - but I think I called that ethnic cleansing for the same reason. I think Bidens team are absolutely right on this and there needs to be a very clear red line.
Would you think differently if the Minister for Ethnic Cleansing were not calling for the resettlement of Gaza by Israelis? I.e. if the only moral factors under consideration were the legitimacy of the Israeli military actions in Gaza, the human responses of the residents to the presence of violence, and the willingness of host countries to provide them sanctuary?
As for the Armenians, as someone else pointed out, how much of that is fear of violence and how much of it is unwillingness to live under Azeri rule? Does that make any difference to you in forming your indictment?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2024, 10:35:58 PMI.e. if the only moral factors under consideration were the legitimacy of the Israeli military actions in Gaza, the human responses of the residents to the presence of violence, and the willingness of host countries to provide them sanctuary?
The war in Afghanistan was legitimate.
In retrospect, the war in Iraq in 2003 was not. The one in 1991 was legitimate.
In 1991, the US and the coalition did not go all
Team America World Police on Kuweit. In 2001, despite the failure to come, despite some civilian casualties and friendly fire, there was a limited response to the terrorist attack of 9/11. The US did not raze Kabul or Kandahar. They did go heavy handed on the airstrikes after the main contingent left for Iraq, and that created problems, but that's something else. The policy wasn't to raze entire village, despite their sometime cooperation with the Talebans.
Pro-Israeli are quick to point at all the UN resolutions against Israel, but never at Israel refusal to cooperate with the UN or anyone else to establish a credible peace plan, to investigate over war crimes allegations - even against Israelis - everything is always shrouded. Everyone is the enemy as we hear them.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2024, 10:35:58 PMWould you think differently if the Minister for Ethnic Cleansing were not calling for the resettlement of Gaza by Israelis? I.e. if the only moral factors under consideration were the legitimacy of the Israeli military actions in Gaza, the human responses of the residents to the presence of violence, and the willingness of host countries to provide them sanctuary?
No.
I don't think they're moral factors but factual. The legitimacy of Israeli military action is also irrelevant - I'd almost go in the other direction, that it would become illegitimate if it was being used for that end. I think the fact has moral force rather than being made up of a series of moral assessments.
As I say, we're not there yet - in my view because of repeated, strong public statements against it from the US and Egypt the most likely host. But I think a nation state taking military action against another national territory which is causing quite significant civilian casualties, and then negotiates for the transfer of civilians to a third country with no reasonable chance of returning is ethnic cleansing of that territory. The population are being moved under the duress or threat of violence by the country arranging for them to move.
QuoteAs for the Armenians, as someone else pointed out, how much of that is fear of violence and how much of it is unwillingness to live under Azeri rule? Does that make any difference to you in forming your indictment?
I don't think it matters. It also doesn't quite sit right with me that you'd ever assess it based on the motive or intent of the victims.
I don't think we need to examine the souls of Armenians who've fled. I think the facts are clear. The last I read 99% of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh has gone to Armenia. That is in response to the invasion and occupation by the Azeris - it would not have happened without that. Whether it's because Armenians didn't want to live under Azeri rule (with, for example, streets being re-named after Enver Pasha), or because of the violence of the invasion, or because of the threat of future violence doesn't seem relevnt to me.
FWIW I don't necessarily think intent is necessary on the part of the perpetrators of ethnic cleansing either - I think that and transfer v elimination are why it's not the same as genoscide.
I don't see how you can construct a moral argument based on factors other than facts (or other principles). Otherwise you're just telling which flavor of ice cream you prefer.
Frankly the Armenian-Azeri situation is one in which forced population transfers, way back when those countries were carved out, was necessary. This was a solution we used earlier in the 20th century, and it is sometimes the best of multiple bad options.
The way ethnic Armenian and ethnic Azeri settlement happened, you had a majority Armenian enclave surrounded by majority Azeri territory, and then you had an additional Azeri majority area that is separated from the rest of Azerbaijan by majority Armenian territory (the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic today.)
Like there is not a good way for that to work among peoples that are still prone to religious / ethnic violence. Hard decisions needed to have been made, and land and population swaps between Armenia and Azerbaijan to create two, contiguous countries without exclaves, and with the vast majority of the Armenian and Azeri populations on the "right side" of those lines.
It ended up being settled by a war and forced ethnic cleansing. I don't really see how it wouldn't have been preferable to have followed the process we tended to use earlier in the 20th century where countries made these hard decisions diplomatically.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2024, 02:51:08 AMI don't see how you can construct a moral argument based on factors other than facts (or other principles). Otherwise you're just telling which flavor of ice cream you prefer.
Agreed.
Which is what Sheilbh is doing.
Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2024, 11:08:26 AMAgreed.
Which is what Sheilbh is doing.
In your view what are the facts that he considers necessary to sustain an ethnic cleansing charge?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2024, 01:01:44 PMIn your view what are the facts that he considers necessary to sustain an ethnic cleansing charge?
Quote from: SheilbhI think a nation state taking military action against another national territory which is causing quite significant civilian casualties, and then negotiates for the transfer of civilians to a third country with no reasonable chance of returning is ethnic cleansing of that territory. The population are being moved under the duress or threat of violence by the country arranging for them to move.
Fact 1: The Gazan population is under threat of violence by the IDF.
Fact 2 (hypothetical scenario at this point): Israel makes the arrangement for the Gazan population to leave Gaza.
Fact 3 (hypothetical scenario at this point): In the aftermath of 1 & 2, there are few or no Gazan lefts in Gaza or parts of Gaza, while Israeli settlers move in.
QED ethnic cleansing, in the most classic sense. It may not come to pass - since some of those facts are only scenarios rather than something that has happened. But if it does, that's ethnic cleansing.
That 1 - the threat of violence - purportedly may be done for some other reason than to ethnically cleanse Gaza does not change the fact that the Gazan population is leaving the area to escape violence by the entity that is replacing them with their own citizens;. That is ethnic cleansing.
But some of those facts are not present in Nogorno Kabarak and he calls that ethnic cleansing too.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2024, 02:02:00 PMBut some of those facts are not present in Nogorno Kabarak and he calls that ethnic cleansing too.
What step was missing in NK?
For me the crucial steps are 1) (threat of violence) and 3) (replacing a displaced population on the assumption they're never coming back). 2) is less not required to meet the definition, but rather is a tool to enable 3).
The threat of violence in NK was pretty low, from all we saw. After the initial fighting the NK authorities agreed to stop fighting, and Azerbaijan said they were free to continue living there as Azerbaijani citizens as long as they did not try to break away again or etc. The Armenians decided they didn't trust Azerbaijan to rule them, and left.
It is pretty factually different from Gaza in a number of ways (namely no one is leaving Gaza en masse, you guys are spending a lot of masturbatory time on something that comes from Bezalel Smotrich and won't be implemented), most importantly there is credible evidence Azerbaijan wasn't going to just bomb NK into a pile of rubble, and the Armenians largely admitted they simply weren't willing to tolerate being part of Azerbaijan.
The issue also is the post-Soviet settlement, NK was legally Azerbaijani, maybe it shouldn't have been, but that is where the international community came down on it. Armenia used force, supported by Russia, to largely take control over it shortly after, and once the force calculation changed, Azerbaijan basically reversed that--but legally this was always Azerbaijani territory.
Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2024, 02:19:45 PMWhat step was missing in NK?
For me the crucial steps are 1) (threat of violence) and 3) (replacing a displaced population on the assumption they're never coming back). 2) is less not required to meet the definition, but rather is a tool to enable 3).
The threat of violence if you do not leave. It's emminently possible that Azeri troops have been telling Armenians "if you do not flee we will kill you." I have not heard about it and it's possible they are doing that but without that evidence I do not agree with ethnic cleansing.
For that matter I have not heard any overt message or symbolic gesture from the Israelis that I would interpret to mean "if you do not leave Gaza we will kill you."
Compare these with Bosnia, where this particular message was repeated, and acted upon, until the desired end was achieved.
In NK the threat was pretty clear from general Azeri policy and past ethnic cleansing of Armenians, including those long dead, from Azerbaijan.
All evidence suggested the smart move was to get the fuck out-and that's based on an abstract western view rather than what Armenian media might be saying.
You don't have to literally say "go or we will kill you". There's always mafia style "wouldn't it be a shame if someone were to accidentally drop a grenade through the window of your lovely home..."
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 05, 2024, 02:28:41 PMIt is pretty factually different from Gaza in a number of ways (namely no one is leaving Gaza en masse, you guys are spending a lot of masturbatory time on something that comes from Bezalel Smotrich and won't be implemented), most importantly there is credible evidence Azerbaijan wasn't going to just bomb NK into a pile of rubble, and the Armenians largely admitted they simply weren't willing to tolerate being part of Azerbaijan.
It's not just Smotrich. The reason I've been banging this drum for a while is that the US and Egypt have repeatedly issued public statements saying "don't do this". My view is that the only reason they've been doing that (since at least November) is because that's what they're hearing in their dealings with the Israeli government. You don't publicly warn an ally, sometimes quite sternly, against something you don't think they'll do.
QuoteFor me the crucial steps are 1) (threat of violence) and 3) (replacing a displaced population on the assumption they're never coming back). 2) is less not required to meet the definition, but rather is a tool to enable 3).
Yeah I agree. 1 and 3 are the crucial ones.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2024, 02:48:13 PMIt's not just Smotrich. The reason I've been banging this drum for a while is that the US and Egypt have repeatedly issued public statements saying "don't do this". My view is that the only reason they've been doing that (since at least November) is because that's what they're hearing in their dealings with the Israeli government. You don't publicly warn an ally, sometimes quite sternly, against something you don't think they'll do.
I think you are reading the tea leaves too deeply.
My guess is the most the upper elements of the administration, e.g. Netanyahu and his core entourage, have probably at most tried to see if there was any room to establish a refugee camp in the Sinai, which I'm sure was instantly shot down. That is a far cry from Smotrich's position which is to literally reduce the population of Gaza to ~200,000 people.
Quote from: Josquius on January 05, 2024, 02:45:39 PMIn NK the threat was pretty clear from general Azeri policy and past ethnic cleansing of Armenians, including those long dead, from Azerbaijan.
All evidence suggested the smart move was to get the fuck out-and that's based on an abstract western view rather than what Armenian media might be saying.
You don't have to literally say "go or we will kill you". There's always mafia style "wouldn't it be a shame if someone were to accidentally drop a grenade through the window of your lovely home..."
To Yi's point (hopefully not misrepresenting), I can agree that you can call it ethnic cleansing if people are driven out by
threat of violence, but I don't think it counts if they are merely "unhappy." I feel like the Armenians were a lot closer to the latter than the former. Their main beef when they left was largely that they weren't being allowed to retain an autonomous state inside another country's borders, and left instead of accept the legal reality that they were in Azerbaijan. That is different from leaving at the point of the sword.
On the challenge of what to actually do in Gaza - from the national unity wing of the coalition. I think Indyk's summary of the challenges with this plan is very generous:
QuoteMartin Indyk
@Martin_Indyk
Last night Israeli defense minister Gallant laid out to the security cabinet the IDF's plan for the "day after" in Gaza. It has four components: Israeli responsibility for overall security (including freedom to operate in Gaza); cooperation with Egypt to control and seal the Egypt/Gaza border; a U.S.-led international force to maintain order; and a civilian administrative structure based on local employees. Notably, Gallant declared there will be no Israeli civilian presence in Gaza.
🧵My take on Gallant's concept (spoiler alert - bold prediction in 6/6): 1/6 Gallant's plan is not yet fully articulated or embraced by Netanyahu, let alone his cabinet. But it is most likely to prevail because it represents the IDF's needs.
2/6 There is inherent tension in Israel taking overall security responsibility for itself and handing over security responsibility to a U.S.-led multinational police force which will not be willing to be sub-contractors to the IDF. As of now, there is no such force being constituted and no willingness of any Arab state to participate.
3/6 Working with Egypt to prevent smuggling of arms into Gaza from Sinai is a noble objective but it didn't work before and is unlikely to work now because there's too much money to be made in smuggling.
4/6 By looking to local administrators and bureaucrats to run civil affairs in Gaza, Gallant has knowingly opened the way to a return of the Palestinian Authority. Many of those workers are already on the PA payroll; others worked for Hamas but will need a new paymaster; Arab states will not contribute the money for salaries unless it is handled by the PA.
5/6 Slowly but surely, Netanyahu's bluster and grandiosity is giving way to the practical needs of a day after policy which Israel cannot meet without the support and cooperation of the United States and the international community.
6/6 Notwithstanding his opposition to the PA, I believe the next thing Netanyahu will do is find a way to hand over to Blinken the $75m of PA money that Smotrich is withholding, thereby helping to prevent the financial collapse of the PA. Watch for a package deal in which Abu Mazen appoints a new technocratic PM and prisoner payments are reformed, paving the way for Biden's "Revitalized PA" to start picking up the pieces in Gaza.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 05, 2024, 03:54:57 PMTo Yi's point (hopefully not misrepresenting), I can agree that you can call it ethnic cleansing if people are driven out by threat of violence, but I don't think it counts if they are merely "unhappy." I feel like the Armenians were a lot closer to the latter than the former. Their main beef when they left was largely that they weren't being allowed to retain an autonomous state inside another country's borders, and left instead of accept the legal reality that they were in Azerbaijan. That is different from leaving at the point of the sword.
That's pretty much it.
That's fair enough IMO. The question becomes where exactly it lands between "you're unwilling to live here with us in charge" through "we'll say you can stay because that's the best PR, but you and I both know we'll fuck you up if you stay... oh, you're leaving? How convenient" to "get out or die."
I don't have any insight to where that line sits in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2024, 04:50:49 PMThat's fair enough IMO. The question becomes where exactly it lands between "you're unwilling to live here with us in charge" through "we'll say you can stay because that's the best PR, but you and I both know we'll fuck you up if you stay... oh, you're leaving? How convenient" to "get out or die."
I don't have any insight to where that line sits in Nagorno-Karabakh.
A threat of future violence is no different than a threat of present violence IMO. The line is the threat being communicated.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2024, 04:58:56 PMA threat of future violence is no different than a threat of present violence IMO. The line is the threat being communicated.
Agreed. I guess where the potential ambiguity is about implicit threats. "Nice family. Would be a shame if something happened to it because you decided to be obnoxious, wouldn't it?"
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 05, 2024, 03:54:57 PMQuote from: Josquius on January 05, 2024, 02:45:39 PMIn NK the threat was pretty clear from general Azeri policy and past ethnic cleansing of Armenians, including those long dead, from Azerbaijan.
All evidence suggested the smart move was to get the fuck out-and that's based on an abstract western view rather than what Armenian media might be saying.
You don't have to literally say "go or we will kill you". There's always mafia style "wouldn't it be a shame if someone were to accidentally drop a grenade through the window of your lovely home..."
To Yi's point (hopefully not misrepresenting), I can agree that you can call it ethnic cleansing if people are driven out by threat of violence, but I don't think it counts if they are merely "unhappy." I feel like the Armenians were a lot closer to the latter than the former. Their main beef when they left was largely that they weren't being allowed to retain an autonomous state inside another country's borders, and left instead of accept the legal reality that they were in Azerbaijan. That is different from leaving at the point of the sword.
99% of the population of a place don't leave everything they know and own, land that has been in their family since time immemorial, just because they're mildly miffed at a change in government policy.
That level of movement simply never comes. Even in frontline Ukrainian towns you get more than 1% hanging on. This suggests there was a serious belief in NK that it was go or die.
Azerbaijani policy over recent decades has been pretty clear - eradicate all trace of Armenians ever existing. I understand why still breathing Armenians might feel at risk under the rule of such a dictatorship.
Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2024, 05:11:17 PMAgreed. I guess where the potential ambiguity is about implicit threats. "Nice family. Would be a shame if something happened to it because you decided to be obnoxious, wouldn't it?"
That one is pretty unambiguous to me as well. There's no legitimate reason to hint at violence to one's family as a repercussion for mouthing off to the police or whoever.
Takes backs. Azeri police could just be douche bags and act that way to everyone, including Azeris.
Guardian article: reckless Israeli aggression is forcing victim Hezbollah's hand: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/05/israel-hezbollah-war-hamas-saleh-arouri-lebanon
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2024, 05:28:53 PMThat one is pretty unambiguous to me as well. There's no legitimate reason to hint at violence to one's family as a repercussion for mouthing off to the police or whoever.
The ambiguity is not in whether it's legitimate. The ambuguity is for outside parties such as ourselves in determining what is happening. Are the Armenians leaving because they just hate the Azeris so much they don't want to stay? Or are they leaving because the Azeris have let them know - subtly but unequivocally - that it would be dangerous for them to stay?
Quote from: Josquius on January 05, 2024, 05:25:53 PM99% of the population of a place don't leave everything they know and own, land that has been in their family since time immemorial, just because they're mildly miffed at a change in government policy.
That level of movement simply never comes. Even in frontline Ukrainian towns you get more than 1% hanging on. This suggests there was a serious belief in NK that it was go or die.
Azerbaijani policy over recent decades has been pretty clear - eradicate all trace of Armenians ever existing. I understand why still breathing Armenians might feel at risk under the rule of such a dictatorship.
I agree. The region was more or less entirely emptied of the ethnic Armenian population. I don't really know what else you'd call that. There was intimidation from Azeri troops, but also there was an invasion - the threat of violence is, I'd argue, pretty explicit in invasion and occupation.
The fact that it was people moving "voluntarily" - in the context of an invasion and occupation - seems by the by to me. I thin this is an example of relevant "lived experience" where I think the experience of a war in the 90s that was brutal and of subsequent invasion is going to shape Armenians' response. Also as I say I think even on principle it is problematic for working out what is ethnic cleansing or not. I can't think of many other things where we examine the mind of the victim for their intent. For example if the Armenians left just because they could not abide Azeri rule - would it make a difference if the Azeri intent was to ethnically cleanse the region and they just hadn't got started?
I think intent is, obviously, important for genocide - but that is about the intent of the perpetrator (which I'm more comfortable with).
Though I think OvB is right in his comparison with Nagorno-Karabakh of earlier European population transfers - to some extent it reminds me of Greece Turkey. With the slight caveat that Aliyev is repeatedly referring to the rest of Armenia as "West Azerbaijan".
My view is that I think those population transfers were also ethnic cleansing before the word - even, say, the post-war expulsion of Germans even if that is the most understandable example. I think that it is a huge part of the emergence of nation-states in Europe of people's submitted to either forced assimilation or forced out.
Totally off topic but I think it's an example of European ball of lightness that I always find very annoying. I've been to Poland a couple of times in the last year and, to the point in that Sam Kriss article, Gdansk is a very German Polish city. But it makes me think of President Ruto's comments on the invasion of Ukraine, that Africa was left with borders that were straight and didn't match their people and has been comparatively peaceful despite that. The corner of the world that is blood-soaked in making borders and people match is Europe, but you still see stuff about "deep seated" tribal and ethnic tensions in African reporting. Similarly the anonymous European diplomat quoted as saying it was intolerable that European history in Ukraine was being decided by tank battles - apparently oblivious to the fact that in no continent in the world has history been decided more by tank battles than Europe.
Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2024, 05:53:23 PMThe ambiguity is not in whether it's legitimate. The ambuguity is for outside parties such as ourselves in determining what is happening. Are the Armenians leaving because they just hate the Azeris so much they don't want to stay? Or are they leaving because the Azeris have let them know - subtly but unequivocally - that it would be dangerous for them to stay?
I don't need Armenians to hate Azeris in order to dismiss the charge of ethnic cleansing. Just that they leave without the threat of violence if they stay.
Dangerous for them to stay sounds like a situation in which one possibility is the Azeri cops are saying we will not stick our bayonets in your backs and coerce you, but we can't speak for your new neighbors and they could get ugly. Maybe best to pack up. In that situation I'd say the state is off the hook and the ethnic cleansing is grass roots. If dangerous for them to stay means we're happier if you leave and maybe I will rape your daughter if you stay, yeah, that's ethnic cleansing.
Incidentally, I would like to point out we began our conversation with you taking up Shelf's position, in which he said intent is not a relevant concern.
I'm not taking up Sheilbh's position. I'm stating my own, which seems to have some overlap with Sheilbh's :)
I think framing it in terms of "Azeri cops" doing or not doing something misses the mark when the situation is one of armed forces taking over the territory.
Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2024, 06:25:10 PMI think framing it in terms of "Azeri cops" doing or not doing something misses the mark when the situation is one of armed forces taking over the territory.
Replace all references to Azeri cops with references to Azeri soldiers and I don't see what changes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2024, 06:26:42 PMReplace all references to Azeri cops with references to Azeri soldiers and I don't see what changes.
Heavily armed soldiers in a warzone carry a heavier implication of potential violence that police officers do outside a warzone.
Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2024, 06:32:36 PMHeavily armed soldiers in a warzone carry a heavier implication of potential violence that police officers do outside a warzone.
A soldier with an AK telling an Armenian to leave or die is ethnic cleansing. A cop with a pistol telling an Armenian to leave or die is ethnic cleansing.
Either one standing on a street and saying nothing is not ethnic cleansing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2024, 06:40:30 PMA soldier with an AK telling an Armenian to leave or die is ethnic cleansing. A cop with a pistol telling an Armenian to leave or die is ethnic cleansing.
Either one standing on a street and saying nothing is not ethnic cleansing.
Sure.
I believe cops and military personnel have other actions available to them beyond the two you have described, but I'm not super interested in beating this particular horse to death.
Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2024, 06:43:06 PMSure.
I believe cops and military personnel have other actions available to them beyond the two you have described, but I'm not super interested in beating this particular horse to death.
Cool. :cheers:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2024, 06:40:30 PMQuote from: Jacob on January 05, 2024, 06:32:36 PMHeavily armed soldiers in a warzone carry a heavier implication of potential violence that police officers do outside a warzone.
A soldier with an AK telling an Armenian to leave or die is ethnic cleansing. A cop with a pistol telling an Armenian to leave or die is ethnic cleansing.
Either one standing on a street and saying nothing is not ethnic cleansing.
Depends.
A soldier with an M-16 shoots your brother, then says nothing. Is there a message being sent? If so, what is it?
When mafia-types kill one's family, what message is being sent? All's good?
Weird. Lubavitchers in NYC dug a secret tunnel complex under their synagogue, rioted when the city tried to dismantle.
Those are not the "good" kind of Jews, I am generally in favor of suppressing their behaviors where they seem to believe they are exempt from secular laws (which appears to be a common belief this sect have.)
This the same sect that ran a line around manhattan to get around some sabbath rules?
I'm not sure, I have heard of Chabad Lubavitch before, and there is a "schismatic" sect of "Messianic Jews" (they believe the Messiah was a Chabad rabbi who died in the early 1990s) that is an off shoot of them. It appears these tunnels were somehow tied into the long standing drama between those two groups.
But my understanding is the Orthodox Jewish community in NYC proper is actually much more clannish / sectarian than they seem from outside observers. I think Hasidic Jews in general belong to something like 200 different sects, some of which have extremely opposing views and outright enmity with other sects of Hasidim.
Quote from: HVC on January 09, 2024, 05:05:48 PMThis the same sect that ran a line around manhattan to get around some sabbath rules?
I think that was done by plain vanilla Orthodox Jews.
These are the ones who ran a Jews only ambulance service and didn't pick up a Jamaican dude one of their guys had run over. About 20 years ago.
The story I read was that there was infighting in the synagogue between one faction of Jews and another faction of Jews. Police responded to that fighting and discovered the tunnel during the course of their response.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 09, 2024, 05:11:26 PMBut my understanding is the Orthodox Jewish community in NYC proper is actually much more clannish / sectarian than they seem from outside observers. I think Hasidic Jews in general belong to something like 200 different sects, some of which have extremely opposing views and outright enmity with other sects of Hasidim.
Yes, the Orthodox Jews are Jewish.
It is a curious thing that the Orthodox Jews in Israel tend towards being the scummiest far right ultra nationalist shit bags whilst in the west the Hardei are pretty famously anti-zionist.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Judaism_condemns_Israel%27s_atrocities_-6_%2852032176719%29.jpg/1920px-Judaism_condemns_Israel%27s_atrocities_-6_%2852032176719%29.jpg)
That's a very niche and very unpopular group within the ultra-Orthodox. I think they're basically the equivalent of, say, fundamentalist Mormons in terms of size and popularity within the wider community.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2024, 07:08:24 AMThat's a very niche and very unpopular group within the ultra-Orthodox. I think they're basically the equivalent of, say, fundamentalist Mormons in terms of size and popularity within the wider community.
The history is a little more complicated.
Pre-war the Haredi were overwhelmingly anti-Zionist and against the foundation of an Israeli state on religious grounds. In the wake of Nazism and the Holocaust, many Haredi moderated their views and took a more "hands off" approach to Zionism -they would not actively oppose Israel but would not actively engage with the state. As more time passed, and the Haredi became more enmeshed in the state as welfare recipients, as participants in political coalitions and through influence on state institutions, so that now they are de facto pro-Zionist even if they continue to have reservations about the secular character of state institutions.
Around the time the majority of Haredi moderated their anti-Zionist stance, a dissident group broke off to kept to the older, traditional anti-Zionist view. The NK people demonstrating above trace back to that group. They can fairly represent themselves as being loyal to the "true" traditional faith, for whatever that is worth.
My view is that they are both pretty nuts, although in somewhat different ways. The difference is that the NK people are nuts but marginalized and thus mostly harmless. The nationalist Haredi OTOH have a lot of clout and pose a danger to Israeli's standing as a civilized, secular democracy.
Their concerns that Zionism would redefine the Jewish identity was not wrong.
My understanding of the Haredi anti-Zionist stance is that the objection is religious - basically when the Messiah shows up, the Jews will return to their homeland. The Messiah has not shown up, therefore it is against God for the Jews to establish Israel.
According to Wiki that was also part of it, but as I understand it, they were concerned about what a Jewish nation state would do to the understanding of Jewish identity. And again, they were not wrong.
Things have gotten to the point where being anti-Zionist is antisemitic.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 10, 2024, 01:07:01 PMAccording to Wiki that was also part of it, but as I understand it, they were concerned about what a Jewish nation state would do to the understanding of Jewish identity. And again, they were not wrong.
Things have gotten to the point where being anti-Zionist is antisemitic.
I think you have it backwards. So many anti-semites are pretending to merely be anti-Zionist that it is mudding up the waters.
Quote from: Valmy on January 10, 2024, 01:31:52 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on January 10, 2024, 01:07:01 PMAccording to Wiki that was also part of it, but as I understand it, they were concerned about what a Jewish nation state would do to the understanding of Jewish identity. And again, they were not wrong.
Things have gotten to the point where being anti-Zionist is antisemitic.
I think you have it backwards. So many anti-semites are pretending to merely be anti-Zionist that it is mudding up the waters.
.
My impression is very much the opposite.
The groups that would traditionally make the core of anti semites are weirdly today very pro zionist since it's muslims that are the new enemy number one in their minds.
Quote from: Josquius on January 10, 2024, 02:30:33 PMQuote from: Valmy on January 10, 2024, 01:31:52 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on January 10, 2024, 01:07:01 PMAccording to Wiki that was also part of it, but as I understand it, they were concerned about what a Jewish nation state would do to the understanding of Jewish identity. And again, they were not wrong.
Things have gotten to the point where being anti-Zionist is antisemitic.
I think you have it backwards. So many anti-semites are pretending to merely be anti-Zionist that it is mudding up the waters.
.
My impression is very much the opposite.
The groups that would traditionally make the core of anti semites are weirdly today very pro zionist since it's muslims that are the new enemy number one in their minds.
I'd say the bult of antisemites are Muslims.
Yeah, anti-semitism seems absolutely rampant amongst muslims.
:blink:
Quote from: Threviel on January 11, 2024, 06:24:56 AMYeah, anti-semitism seems absolutely rampant amongst muslims.
Finally Europeans and muslims have something in common :P
Quote from: Josquius on January 11, 2024, 07:05:22 AM:blink:
You can't be serious?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Islam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Islam)
Some quotes:
QuoteIn 2014 the Anti-Defamation League published a global survey of worldwide antisemitic attitudes, reporting that in the Middle East, 74% of adults agreed with a majority of the survey's eleven antisemitic propositions, including that "Jews have too much power in international financial markets" and that "Jews are responsible for most of the world's wars."
QuoteIn 2010, the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation after one year of research, revealed that antisemitism was common among Norwegian Muslims. Teachers at schools with large shares of Muslims revealed that Muslim students often "praise or admire Adolf Hitler for his killing of Jews", that "Jew-hate is legitimate within vast groups of Muslim students" and that "Muslims laugh or command [teachers] to stop when trying to educate about the Holocaust".[241][242][243]
QuoteAccording to British Muslim journalist Mehdi Hasan, "anti-Semitism isn't just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it's routine and commonplace".[244] A 2016 survey of 5,446 adult Britons, part of a report titled Anti-Semitism in contemporary Great Britain that was conducted by the London-based Institute for Jewish Policy Research, found that the prevalence of antisemitic views among Muslims was two to four times higher than the rest of the population,[245] 55% of British Muslims held at least one antisemitic view, and that there was a correlation between Muslim religiosity and antisemitism.[246] A 2020 poll found that 45% of British Muslims hold a generally favourable view of British Jews, and 18% hold a negative view.[247]
QuoteAccording to a 2012 survey, 18% of Turks in Germany believe that Jews are inferior human beings.[228][229] A similar study found that most of Germany's native born Muslim youth and children of immigrants have antisemitic views.
Quote from: Threviel on January 11, 2024, 10:39:15 AMQuote from: Josquius on January 11, 2024, 07:05:22 AM:blink:
You can't be serious?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Islam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Islam)
Some quotes:
QuoteIn 2014 the Anti-Defamation League published a global survey of worldwide antisemitic attitudes, reporting that in the Middle East, 74% of adults agreed with a majority of the survey's eleven antisemitic propositions, including that "Jews have too much power in international financial markets" and that "Jews are responsible for most of the world's wars."
QuoteIn 2010, the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation after one year of research, revealed that antisemitism was common among Norwegian Muslims. Teachers at schools with large shares of Muslims revealed that Muslim students often "praise or admire Adolf Hitler for his killing of Jews", that "Jew-hate is legitimate within vast groups of Muslim students" and that "Muslims laugh or command [teachers] to stop when trying to educate about the Holocaust".[241][242][243]
QuoteAccording to British Muslim journalist Mehdi Hasan, "anti-Semitism isn't just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it's routine and commonplace".[244] A 2016 survey of 5,446 adult Britons, part of a report titled Anti-Semitism in contemporary Great Britain that was conducted by the London-based Institute for Jewish Policy Research, found that the prevalence of antisemitic views among Muslims was two to four times higher than the rest of the population,[245] 55% of British Muslims held at least one antisemitic view, and that there was a correlation between Muslim religiosity and antisemitism.[246] A 2020 poll found that 45% of British Muslims hold a generally favourable view of British Jews, and 18% hold a negative view.[247]
QuoteAccording to a 2012 survey, 18% of Turks in Germany believe that Jews are inferior human beings.[228][229] A similar study found that most of Germany's native born Muslim youth and children of immigrants have antisemitic views.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Sorry, thought your :blink: was in response to my post preceding it and indicated that what I posted had you flabbergasted.
Seems quite clear what he is saying - many Mulsims are anti-semitic.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2024, 04:55:44 PMWeird. Lubavitchers in NYC dug a secret tunnel complex under their synagogue, rioted when the city tried to dismantle.
Turns out this was an internal dispute between Chabad leadership and a faction of messianic students, who believe that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah. The latter sought to "expand" the late Rabbi's HQ and the leadership sought to shut it down.
He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.
Quote from: Threviel on January 11, 2024, 11:59:58 AMSorry, thought your :blink: was in response to my post preceding it and indicated that what I posted had you flabbergasted.
It was to you and raz because I don't get why you were saying that in response to me pointing out nazis these days tend to be pretty pro Israel since it's Muslims they hate.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 11, 2024, 12:39:26 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2024, 04:55:44 PMWeird. Lubavitchers in NYC dug a secret tunnel complex under their synagogue, rioted when the city tried to dismantle.
Turns out this was an internal dispute between Chabad leadership and a faction of messianic students, who believe that Rabbi Schneerson was the messiah. The latter sought to "expand" the late Rabbi's HQ and the leadership sought to shut it down.
Well that's ridiculous. Everybody knows the Messiah was Sabbatai Zevi.
Quote from: Josquius on January 11, 2024, 01:59:02 PMQuote from: Threviel on January 11, 2024, 11:59:58 AMSorry, thought your :blink: was in response to my post preceding it and indicated that what I posted had you flabbergasted.
It was to you and raz because I don't get why you were saying that in response to me pointing out nazis these days tend to be pretty pro Israel since it's Muslims they hate.
Well, it's not true. You should take a look at what Nazis say. They really don't like Israel. You have guys like David Duke going to Syria to rant on about Zionism.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2024, 02:25:19 PMQuote from: Josquius on January 11, 2024, 01:59:02 PMQuote from: Threviel on January 11, 2024, 11:59:58 AMSorry, thought your :blink: was in response to my post preceding it and indicated that what I posted had you flabbergasted.
It was to you and raz because I don't get why you were saying that in response to me pointing out nazis these days tend to be pretty pro Israel since it's Muslims they hate.
Well, it's not true. You should take a look at what Nazis say. They really don't like Israel. You have guys like David Duke going to Syria to rant on about Zionism.
You really ought to look at what nazis say and do.
The recent crap in London with the remembrance day protests - guess who it was looking to stir shit and "protect" monuments, look who was arrested for trying to attend a march against anti semitism when specifically told he was unwelcome.
In my experience the only ones I've ever met in real life that were anti-semites came from muslim cultural environments, Iranians mostly. I don't think I've ever talked to a middle easterner about this kind of stuff without them being anti-semite in one way or the other.
And I have met quite a few nazis, they only rave about immigrants in general and muslims in particular. Sure, they might masturbate wildly to Hitler and company, but when speaking about the present context they don't talk much about Jews.
I misunderstood what you were saying Jos, sorry.
Quote from: Josquius on January 11, 2024, 02:52:47 PMQuote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2024, 02:25:19 PMQuote from: Josquius on January 11, 2024, 01:59:02 PMQuote from: Threviel on January 11, 2024, 11:59:58 AMSorry, thought your :blink: was in response to my post preceding it and indicated that what I posted had you flabbergasted.
It was to you and raz because I don't get why you were saying that in response to me pointing out nazis these days tend to be pretty pro Israel since it's Muslims they hate.
Well, it's not true. You should take a look at what Nazis say. They really don't like Israel. You have guys like David Duke going to Syria to rant on about Zionism.
You really ought to look at what nazis say and do.
The recent crap in London with the remembrance day protests - guess who it was looking to stir shit and "protect" monuments, look who was arrested for trying to attend a march against anti semitism when specifically told he was unwelcome.
I don't know, Jeremy Corbyn? Some other Labor party member? I don't know British antisemites that well.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7zx5a/neo-nazis-hijack-pro-palestine-protest-mike-enoch
QuoteThe group was led by Mike Peinovich, a long-time white nationalist personality who previously used the alias "Mike Enoch," and was one of the architects of the deadly 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville.
Israel "is a pure genocidal state, make no mistake," Peinovich told rally attendees over a PA system. "We Americans have been snookered into supporting [Israel] by Jewish control of our banks, our media, and our politicians, but we have to say enough and rise up as a people."
QuoteLast weekend, members of NSC-131, a hardcore neo-Nazi group in New England, gathered on an overpass in Saugus, Massachusetts, outside of Boston, and hung banners and signs saying things like "Free Palestine" as well as "No More Wars for Israel," and "End Jewish Terror."
QuoteEarlier in October, dozens of masked members of National Socialist Florida, another hardcore neo-Nazi group, assembled along the side of a road in Lady Lake, Florida, about 50 miles outside of Orlando. They had similar signs to their NSC-131 counterparts, plus others with messages like "Our Tax Dollars Fund Israeli Bloodlust" and "The Great Replacement is Real." National Socialist Florida put together a slickly-edited video of their demonstration which they shared on their social media platforms. "America and Palestine share a similar fate," text in the video reads. "REPLACEMENT."
QuoteIn Missoula, the neo-Nazis later tried to align themselves with the 100-strong pro-Palestine demonstration that was taking place that day at the Missoula County Courthouse, according to a report by the Daily Montanan. As pro-Palestine demonstrators chanted "free, free Palestine," one of the neo-Nazis shouted through a megaphone, "the Jews have to be stopped if you want to free Palestine."
https://www.isdglobal.org/digital_dispatches/hate-united-neo-nazi-accelerationist-support-for-hamas/
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5601134,00.html
https://www.sfchronicle.com/us-world/article/nazi-antisemitism-israel-hamas-18476691.php
https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/white-supremacist-leaders-applaud-hamas-and-violence-against-israelis
https://www.jpost.com/international/neo-nazis-wave-palestinian-flags-in-protest-against-israel-556416
I don't have time to post quotes from each article. I need to go to the store.
Quote from: Threviel on January 11, 2024, 03:00:39 PMIn my experience the only ones I've ever met in real life that were anti-semites came from muslim cultural environments, Iranians mostly. I don't think I've ever talked to a middle easterner about this kind of stuff without them being anti-semite in one way or the other.
And I have met quite a few nazis, they only rave about immigrants in general and muslims in particular. Sure, they might masturbate wildly to Hitler and company, but when speaking about the present context they don't talk much about Jews.
I misunderstood what you were saying Jos, sorry.
My experiences are similar to this, while I don't really open the topic in discussions with Muslims, and I don't talk to Muslims a ton--basically everyone I have ever heard utter real antisemitism in my personal life was a Muslim person ranting about Israel and crossing over into outright Jew bashing.
Also like you, my experience has been typical Neo-Nazis, despite their origin, rarely seem to talk that much about Jews, they talk far more about Muslims and other people they associate with immigration.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2024, 03:20:54 PMQuote from: Josquius on January 11, 2024, 02:52:47 PMQuote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2024, 02:25:19 PMQuote from: Josquius on January 11, 2024, 01:59:02 PMQuote from: Threviel on January 11, 2024, 11:59:58 AMSorry, thought your :blink: was in response to my post preceding it and indicated that what I posted had you flabbergasted.
It was to you and raz because I don't get why you were saying that in response to me pointing out nazis these days tend to be pretty pro Israel since it's Muslims they hate.
Well, it's not true. You should take a look at what Nazis say. They really don't like Israel. You have guys like David Duke going to Syria to rant on about Zionism.
You really ought to look at what nazis say and do.
The recent crap in London with the remembrance day protests - guess who it was looking to stir shit and "protect" monuments, look who was arrested for trying to attend a march against anti semitism when specifically told he was unwelcome.
I don't know, Jeremy Corbyn? Some other Labor party member? I don't know British antisemites that well.
The far right raz. It was the far right.
Why the fuck would anti semites want to be in a march against anti semitism?
Against your 10 guys in a bar fringe nuts in America you've the actual policy of far right parties of note.
https://www.ukip.org/israel-s-fight-is-our-fight
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/06/marine-le-pens-support-of-israel-seen-as-move-away-from-partys-antisemitic-past
https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/article-743376
Okay, you really need to work on your language. You said Nazi. LePen is not a Nazi. The UKIP isn't Nazi. Nazi does not mean "people that Josquius disagrees with".
And not a moment too soon:
'We're still San Francisco:' Board of Supervisors votes in favor of cease-fire resolution in Gaza (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/were-still-san-francisco-board-of-supervisors-votes-in-favor-of-cease-fire-resolution-in-gaza/ar-AA1mIPtz)
PEACE FOR OUR TIME!
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2024, 04:37:19 PMOkay, you really need to work on your language. You said Nazi. LePen is not a Nazi. The UKIP isn't Nazi. Nazi does not mean "people that Josquius disagrees with".
:rolleyes:
Nazi, fascist, far right. In some contexts where nuance is unimportant these words are interchangeable.
Also the first post that triggered you never mentioned the word nazi.
Quote from: Josquius on January 11, 2024, 04:46:29 PMQuote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2024, 04:37:19 PMOkay, you really need to work on your language. You said Nazi. LePen is not a Nazi. The UKIP isn't Nazi. Nazi does not mean "people that Josquius disagrees with".
:rolleyes:
Nazi, fascist, far right. In some contexts where nuance is unimportant these words are interchangeable.
Also the first post that triggered you never mentioned the word nazi.
So what you really meant was people who disagree with you support Israel. In my original post I pointed out that the majority of people who are antisemites are themselves Muslim. Hatred of Jews is basically the default in those countries. I suppose you meant only white Westerners. When Muslims do it it's not far right I guess.
Raz - Josq was speaking of the Nazi-adjacent, racist, traditionally white supremacist far right in European and North American politics. This group of people have traditionally been hardcore anti-semitic but, in Josq's observation, those folks have largely shifted away from anti-semitism to being pro-Israel and anti-Muslim
That Muslims are or are not anti-semitic is neither here nor there in response to that observation (whether it's true or not).
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 11, 2024, 04:05:39 PMQuote from: Threviel on January 11, 2024, 03:00:39 PMIn my experience the only ones I've ever met in real life that were anti-semites came from muslim cultural environments, Iranians mostly. I don't think I've ever talked to a middle easterner about this kind of stuff without them being anti-semite in one way or the other.
And I have met quite a few nazis, they only rave about immigrants in general and muslims in particular. Sure, they might masturbate wildly to Hitler and company, but when speaking about the present context they don't talk much about Jews.
I misunderstood what you were saying Jos, sorry.
My experiences are similar to this, while I don't really open the topic in discussions with Muslims, and I don't talk to Muslims a ton--basically everyone I have ever heard utter real antisemitism in my personal life was a Muslim person ranting about Israel and crossing over into outright Jew bashing.
Also like you, my experience has been typical Neo-Nazis, despite their origin, rarely seem to talk that much about Jews, they talk far more about Muslims and other people they associate with immigration.
You have both met "quite a few Nazis"?
How and where?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2024, 04:57:04 PMQuote from: Josquius on January 11, 2024, 04:46:29 PMQuote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2024, 04:37:19 PMOkay, you really need to work on your language. You said Nazi. LePen is not a Nazi. The UKIP isn't Nazi. Nazi does not mean "people that Josquius disagrees with".
:rolleyes:
Nazi, fascist, far right. In some contexts where nuance is unimportant these words are interchangeable.
Also the first post that triggered you never mentioned the word nazi.
So what you really meant was people who disagree with you support Israel.
Ah yes, the old you just call anyone who disagrees with you a nazi. When we are talking about groups that are uncontroversially far right and shit even if not technically actual nazis (though look at their history....).
Yeah.... This kind of attack demonstrates a problem on your end rather than mine.
Quote from: Jacob on January 11, 2024, 05:00:31 PMRaz - Josq was speaking of the Nazi-adjacent, racist, traditionally white supremacist far right in European and North American politics. This group of people have traditionally been hardcore anti-semitic but, in Josq's observation, those folks have largely shifted away from anti-semitism to being pro-Israel and anti-Muslim
That Muslims are or are not anti-semitic is neither here nor there in response to that observation (whether it's true or not).
He really didn't make that clear. Since he was talking about the "core" of antisemitism which is clearly in the Muslim world. The clarified he was talking about Nazis, but after I showed that actual Nazis were still pretty anti-Jewish, he narrowed it down just people he disagreed with.
I don't know about "Nazi-adjacent" but traditionally racist, white supremacist describes pretty much the whole West up until fairly recently. So what are talking about here? The biological descendants of Dreyfusards are now okay with Jews who are far away but less okay with Muslims who are near by?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2024, 05:02:06 PMYou have both met "quite a few Nazis"?
How and where?
Nuremberg Trials 2.0 'bout to kick off.
Quote from: Josquius on January 11, 2024, 05:14:21 PMQuote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2024, 04:57:04 PMQuote from: Josquius on January 11, 2024, 04:46:29 PMQuote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2024, 04:37:19 PMOkay, you really need to work on your language. You said Nazi. LePen is not a Nazi. The UKIP isn't Nazi. Nazi does not mean "people that Josquius disagrees with".
:rolleyes:
Nazi, fascist, far right. In some contexts where nuance is unimportant these words are interchangeable.
Also the first post that triggered you never mentioned the word nazi.
So what you really meant was people who disagree with you support Israel.
Ah yes, the old you just call anyone who disagrees with you a nazi. When we are talking about groups that are uncontroversially far right and shit even if not technically actual nazis (though look at their history....).
Yeah.... This kind of attack demonstrates a problem on your end rather than mine.
Basically everyone is far right to you! You thought I was a Trump supporter!
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2024, 05:18:09 PMQuote from: Josquius on January 11, 2024, 05:14:21 PMQuote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2024, 04:57:04 PMQuote from: Josquius on January 11, 2024, 04:46:29 PMQuote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2024, 04:37:19 PMOkay, you really need to work on your language. You said Nazi. LePen is not a Nazi. The UKIP isn't Nazi. Nazi does not mean "people that Josquius disagrees with".
:rolleyes:
Nazi, fascist, far right. In some contexts where nuance is unimportant these words are interchangeable.
Also the first post that triggered you never mentioned the word nazi.
So what you really meant was people who disagree with you support Israel.
Ah yes, the old you just call anyone who disagrees with you a nazi. When we are talking about groups that are uncontroversially far right and shit even if not technically actual nazis (though look at their history....).
Yeah.... This kind of attack demonstrates a problem on your end rather than mine.
Basically everyone is far right to you! You thought I was a Trump supporter!
.... We are talking about groups that anyone and everyone, usually themselves included, defines as far right....
And again "you just call everyone far right!" is a very bad look.
[anti-semitic imagery deleted - Jacob]
Traditional anti-Zionism from groups that everyone agrees are far left. Communist, Socialist, Anarchist, Far Left, "In some contexts where nuance is unimportant these words are interchangeable".
Is it not surprising so many of the Far-left are anti-semetic? Look where they saying 50 years ago!
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2024, 05:02:06 PMYou have both met "quite a few Nazis"?
How and where?
Sir I've been on reddit for 15 years.
Raz, I'd appreciate it if you didn't post this kind of hateful images.
Quote from: Jacob on January 11, 2024, 09:23:02 PMRaz, I'd appreciate it if you didn't post this kind of hateful images.
They aren't pleasant to look at but it is important. The secretary of the UN said that Oct 7th didn't happen in a vacuum, so it's important to see the context that these things happen in.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2024, 10:57:52 PMThey aren't pleasant to look at but it is important. The secretary of the UN said that Oct 7th didn't happen in a vacuum, so it's important to see the context that these things happen in.
We don't post blatantly racist images on languish.
Not even for educational purposes?
UK and US airstrikes on Yemen targeting the Houthis (not sure about this).
Also India expanding its naval presnece in the Arabian Sea to help protect shipping which is interesting (not least on just how the world is changing):
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/india-flexes-maritime-muscles-boosting-024135522.html
Of course the Guardian called it a dangerous escalation. I just don't get this attitude. Yemenis attacking civilian shipping wasn't the dangerous escalation, the civilised world's response is? Is it because they consider brown people too inferior to have the concept of escalation or what?
Anyways, I do hope India joins in on the strikes. I fail the see the choice here. Reignite inflation in our countries and suffer the economic and perhaps more importantly political consequences lest some Iranian mercenaries die?
I guess the question is what are these strikes accomplishing.
Have they actually found a base where they're storing a bunch of missiles and drones? Or as would be smarter of the Houthis are they keeping things really distributed and moving fast?
Interesting how this one has bitten the world in the arse. Just letting the Saudis do what they want in Yemen turns out to have been a bad idea. Who'd have thought.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2024, 05:43:11 PM[anti-semitic imagery deleted - Jacob]
Traditional anti-Zionism from groups that everyone agrees are far left. Communist, Socialist, Anarchist, Far Left, "In some contexts where nuance is unimportant these words are interchangeable".
Is it not surprising so many of the Far-left are anti-semetic? Look where they saying 50 years ago!
The far left were traditionally anti-semitic in the way everyone was anti-semitic, with a bit of typical confusion of Jews=Rich=Bad. Jews weren't much of a concern to them. It just wasn't something that really mattered much in their world view.
Anti-semitism was famously the core ideology of the biggest group of (far right) shit heads the world has ever seen. Playing a guessing game you'd get them with a simple clue of "Germans. Not big on the Jews".
I seriously don't know why you're so triggered about all this. Is it that you share views with the far right on this issue? - that does happen you know. The world isn't black and white even when talking about the worst of the worst.
This isn't one of those cases IMO but broken clocks are right twice a day, albeit often for the wrong reasons. For instance I am totally aligned with Farage and co. on the need for voting reform in the UK.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2024, 05:02:06 PMYou have both met "quite a few Nazis"?
How and where?
My cousin went nazi growing up, we spent a lot of time together before and during that process. Lots of people from my countryside village went that way.
I had a friend meeting a nazi girl and going nazi in my early twenties. Last time I saw him was his birthday that I spent with a skinhead gang discussing how they hunted immigrants.
I had a colleague that was a nazi.
And I mean nazi, not slightly racist.
Quote from: Josquius on January 12, 2024, 03:55:40 AMI guess the question is what are these strikes accomplishing.
Sure. If one's default stance out the gate is that air/missile strikes don't work.
It is an escalation (and Iran has space to escalate too). And the Houthi-Iranian goals are to draw the Americans in and regionalise the conflict.
Practically I suspect the risk/challenge with Yemen is relatively limited strikes are likely to have a limited impact (but boost the Houthis and Iran domestically). The alternative is more intervention/bigger strikes but there is space for escalation (the Persian Gulf, Lebanon, Saudi) and a risk of the West getting bogged down - the Saudi/Gulf experience in the last decade is not encouraging.
And the alternative is doing not much which emboldens more attacks on shipping.
Not sure what the best option is.
How is a missile response to a missile attack an escalation?
Quote from: Jacob on January 12, 2024, 12:14:59 AMQuote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2024, 10:57:52 PMThey aren't pleasant to look at but it is important. The secretary of the UN said that Oct 7th didn't happen in a vacuum, so it's important to see the context that these things happen in.
We don't post blatantly racist images on languish.
It was anti-Zionism. Anti-Zionism isn't Anti-Semitism. Or so I hear.
Quote from: Josquius on January 12, 2024, 03:55:40 AMThe far left were traditionally anti-semitic in the way everyone was anti-semitic, with a bit of typical confusion of Jews=Rich=Bad. Jews weren't much of a concern to them. It just wasn't something that really mattered much in their world view.
Anti-semitism was famously the core ideology of the biggest group of (far right) shit heads the world has ever seen. Playing a guessing game you'd get them with a simple clue of "Germans. Not big on the Jews".
I seriously don't know why you're so triggered about all this. Is it that you share views with the far right on this issue? - that does happen you know. The world isn't black and white even when talking about the worst of the worst.
This isn't one of those cases IMO but broken clocks are right twice a day, albeit often for the wrong reasons. For instance I am totally aligned with Farage and co. on the need for voting reform in the UK.
Those images I posted were from the 1970's not the 1920's.
Quote from: The Brain on January 12, 2024, 05:14:04 AMHow is a missile response to a missile attack an escalation?
It isn't. I don't understand the concept of returning fire classified as escalation. That's some real proper victim mentality.
Quote from: Tamas on January 12, 2024, 03:16:39 AMOf course the Guardian called it a dangerous escalation. I just don't get this attitude. Yemenis attacking civilian shipping wasn't the dangerous escalation, the civilised world's response is? Is it because they consider brown people too inferior to have the concept of escalation or what?
Anyways, I do hope India joins in on the strikes. I fail the see the choice here. Reignite inflation in our countries and suffer the economic and perhaps more importantly political consequences lest some Iranian mercenaries die?
Everything is an escalation. Only the status quo with nothing happening is not an escalation. The Guardian, nimby at home & nimby in the world.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 12, 2024, 07:39:11 AMQuote from: Tamas on January 12, 2024, 03:16:39 AMOf course the Guardian called it a dangerous escalation. I just don't get this attitude. Yemenis attacking civilian shipping wasn't the dangerous escalation, the civilised world's response is? Is it because they consider brown people too inferior to have the concept of escalation or what?
Anyways, I do hope India joins in on the strikes. I fail the see the choice here. Reignite inflation in our countries and suffer the economic and perhaps more importantly political consequences lest some Iranian mercenaries die?
Everything is an escalation. Only the status quo with nothing happening is not an escalation. The Guardian, nimby at home & nimby in the world.
Here is a front page opinion piece to help you understand:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/12/yemen-houthi-militia-israel-gaza-red-sea
QuoteBy bombing Yemen, the west risks repeating its own mistakes
Mohamad Bazzi
Instead of retaliating against the Houthi militia, the US and its allies should be pressing Israel to end its invasion of Gaza and accept a ceasefire
The appropriate state response to violence is to do what the aggressor demands, apparently. Assuming the aggressor is Muslim, anyways.
Quote from: Tamas on January 12, 2024, 07:49:00 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on January 12, 2024, 07:39:11 AMQuote from: Tamas on January 12, 2024, 03:16:39 AMOf course the Guardian called it a dangerous escalation. I just don't get this attitude. Yemenis attacking civilian shipping wasn't the dangerous escalation, the civilised world's response is? Is it because they consider brown people too inferior to have the concept of escalation or what?
Anyways, I do hope India joins in on the strikes. I fail the see the choice here. Reignite inflation in our countries and suffer the economic and perhaps more importantly political consequences lest some Iranian mercenaries die?
Everything is an escalation. Only the status quo with nothing happening is not an escalation. The Guardian, nimby at home & nimby in the world.
Here is a front page opinion piece to help you understand:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/12/yemen-houthi-militia-israel-gaza-red-sea
QuoteBy bombing Yemen, the west risks repeating its own mistakes
Mohamad Bazzi
Instead of retaliating against the Houthi militia, the US and its allies should be pressing Israel to end its invasion of Gaza and accept a ceasefire
The appropriate state response to violence is to do what the aggressor demands, apparently. Assuming the aggressor is Muslim, anyways.
Except violence in the region is exactly what Iran wants?
The Houthis and Hamas acted with their encouragement at the very least.
Quote from: Josquius on January 12, 2024, 08:04:21 AMQuote from: Tamas on January 12, 2024, 07:49:00 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on January 12, 2024, 07:39:11 AMQuote from: Tamas on January 12, 2024, 03:16:39 AMOf course the Guardian called it a dangerous escalation. I just don't get this attitude. Yemenis attacking civilian shipping wasn't the dangerous escalation, the civilised world's response is? Is it because they consider brown people too inferior to have the concept of escalation or what?
Anyways, I do hope India joins in on the strikes. I fail the see the choice here. Reignite inflation in our countries and suffer the economic and perhaps more importantly political consequences lest some Iranian mercenaries die?
Everything is an escalation. Only the status quo with nothing happening is not an escalation. The Guardian, nimby at home & nimby in the world.
Here is a front page opinion piece to help you understand:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/12/yemen-houthi-militia-israel-gaza-red-sea
QuoteBy bombing Yemen, the west risks repeating its own mistakes
Mohamad Bazzi
Instead of retaliating against the Houthi militia, the US and its allies should be pressing Israel to end its invasion of Gaza and accept a ceasefire
The appropriate state response to violence is to do what the aggressor demands, apparently. Assuming the aggressor is Muslim, anyways.
Except violence in the region is exactly what Iran wants?
The Houthis and Hamas acted with their encouragement at the very least.
The way I see it there are two basic options:
1. do nothing - Iran gets the destabilisation and damage it wants by causing economic and thus political damages for its perceived rivals. Succeed or fail, there's no risk or high cost for Iran and its allies.
2. return fire - Iran may or may not get the destabilisation and damage it wants via triggering further escalation in the region. Succeed or fail, there's significant risk and cost for Iran and its allies.
It's a no-brainer. The only guaranteed way for us to lose is to not hit back.
Quote from: Tamas on January 12, 2024, 08:25:13 AMThe way I see it there are two basic options:
1. do nothing - Iran gets the destabilisation and damage it wants by causing economic and thus political damages for its perceived rivals. Succeed or fail, there's no risk or high cost for Iran and its allies.
2. return fire - Iran may or may not get the destabilisation and damage it wants via triggering further escalation in the region. Succeed or fail, there's significant risk and cost for Iran and its allies.
It's a no-brainer. The only guaranteed way for us to lose is to not hit back.
Or
3. Figure out a way to stop the fighting.
The true answer lies with a mix of 2 and 3. Israel getting back to sanity is very possible which should cool things there but of course that's not happening overnight and in the meantime we have to defend ourselves.
Iran wants an end to the war in Gaza so it can save Hamas.
I think the main question on the Houthis is Iran, more than Yemen.
Iran obviously has spent a lot of time and money building the "Axis of Resistance", primarily to undermine both American power and Saudi influence in the Middle East.
But did they build them to fight some large, pitched war against Israel or the West? I have seen some pundits openly say that, but I'm not really sure I agree. Despite its (well earned) reputation for being a shit head country, Iran has actually quite regularly backed down over the course of the last 20 years whenever escalations with the United States were obviously "getting too serious."
I think Iran wants to undermine the U.S., but doesn't want to get into an actual war. I think Iran genuinely fears being the target of a bombing campaign from the U.S., and has fairly regularly backed off of various behaviors when it was clear that level of escalation was "on the table." After Trump assassinated Soleimani, it is interesting to note Iran's only actual response was a symbolic, well telegraphed bombing of a few U.S. bases in Iraq (which Iran knew would be largely ineffective because the personnel had so much warning of the bombings and bunkered down.)
I will also note it seems like the targets hit yesterday were primarily logistical--the largest port that the Houthis control was extensively bombed. My guess is they are thinking they want to make it more logistically difficult for Iran to resupply the Houthis.
Actually attacking the resources that launch cheap drones and rockets is probably a losing game, I am guessing the logic is "but if we make it so it is harder and more expensive to ship materials to the Houthis, that complicates the situation for both them and Iran."
Obviously a day's strikes by itself won't move the needle dramatically on that count, but it sends a "shot across the bow" that follow ups could be possible.
There's obviously limits to what pure bombing campaigns can achieve, the Houthis themselves are not likely that concerned either way, they were bombed for like 10 years by KSA. But Iran has shown every indication over the last 20 years it genuinely fears escalating too much with the U.S. And I think that speaks to the differences between an actual functioning state like Iran vs a quasi-state terror group like the Houthis. Iran doesn't want to live like ISIS and al-Qaeda, Iran has a lot of under the surface instability and dissatisfaction with the regime. If things got to a real exchange with Iran, which would almost certainly dramatically reduce Iranian quality of living and infrastructure, it would be the sort of blow the Ayatollah (and his predecessor even), pretty clearly worked to avoid for basically the entire history of the Islamic Republic.
Quote from: Tamas on January 12, 2024, 07:49:00 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on January 12, 2024, 07:39:11 AMQuote from: Tamas on January 12, 2024, 03:16:39 AMOf course the Guardian called it a dangerous escalation. I just don't get this attitude. Yemenis attacking civilian shipping wasn't the dangerous escalation, the civilised world's response is? Is it because they consider brown people too inferior to have the concept of escalation or what?
Anyways, I do hope India joins in on the strikes. I fail the see the choice here. Reignite inflation in our countries and suffer the economic and perhaps more importantly political consequences lest some Iranian mercenaries die?
Everything is an escalation. Only the status quo with nothing happening is not an escalation. The Guardian, nimby at home & nimby in the world.
Here is a front page opinion piece to help you understand:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/12/yemen-houthi-militia-israel-gaza-red-sea
QuoteBy bombing Yemen, the west risks repeating its own mistakes
Mohamad Bazzi
Instead of retaliating against the Houthi militia, the US and its allies should be pressing Israel to end its invasion of Gaza and accept a ceasefire
The appropriate state response to violence is to do what the aggressor demands, apparently. Assuming the aggressor is Muslim, anyways.
I guess Mister Bazzi doesn't believe Israel has the right to exist. :sigh:
Quote from: Josquius on January 12, 2024, 08:26:47 AMQuote from: Tamas on January 12, 2024, 08:25:13 AMThe way I see it there are two basic options:
1. do nothing - Iran gets the destabilisation and damage it wants by causing economic and thus political damages for its perceived rivals. Succeed or fail, there's no risk or high cost for Iran and its allies.
2. return fire - Iran may or may not get the destabilisation and damage it wants via triggering further escalation in the region. Succeed or fail, there's significant risk and cost for Iran and its allies.
It's a no-brainer. The only guaranteed way for us to lose is to not hit back.
Or
3. Figure out a way to stop the fighting.
The true answer lies with a mix of 2 and 3. Israel getting back to sanity is very possible which should cool things there but of course that's not happening overnight and in the meantime we have to defend ourselves.
Trying to pressure Israel in the background is one thing.
But I couldn't possibly fathom a worst response to violence on your own civilians, than doing exactly what the perpetrator wants you to do. There MUST be an answer to that.
Or do you suggest the world just does whatever the Houthis want from now on until eternity?
In other words: don't be this guy:
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/640x360/p0483lnp.jpg)
Quote from: Tamas on January 12, 2024, 08:25:13 AMThe way I see it there are two basic options:
1. do nothing - Iran gets the destabilisation and damage it wants by causing economic and thus political damages for its perceived rivals. Succeed or fail, there's no risk or high cost for Iran and its allies.
2. return fire - Iran may or may not get the destabilisation and damage it wants via triggering further escalation in the region. Succeed or fail, there's significant risk and cost for Iran and its allies.
It's a no-brainer. The only guaranteed way for us to lose is to not hit back.
There was a large naval presence in the region that was shielding from attacks/shooting down missiles. My understanding is that basically worked militarily but not economically.
So the next step is as you say strikes. I think that is a step up or escalation from what we've been doing for the last week or two. Those strikes are so far limited and I suspect will have limited impact.
As I say, I hope it all turns out well - my suspicion is it won't have much impact and we'll face the choice of more of strikes or escalating in a different way. For a US that has been trying for 15 years to disentangle itself from the Middle East that's not ideal. And it shows Europe's dependence again - broadly US trade isn't massively hit (though some trade from China goes through the Red Sea). Europe is, but need the US to respond and to lead the response (although France, UK, Netherlands, Spain and others are participating - the French with an independent command separate from the US lead coalition :lol: :frog:).
All of which is to say I don't think escalation is good or bad, but I think it is factually an escalation from what we were doing yesterday. I'm not sure if this is the right choice or not - and I don't think any of the choices are particularly appealing.
QuoteI think the main question on the Houthis is Iran, more than Yemen.
Yeah but I think the Houthis have a role. The Houthis are, as you say, basically a quasi-state actor at this point. They effectively run a country - they are not like the Taliban or al-Qaeda in that sense. They're closer to Hezbollah or Hamas in Gaza.
There are pressures and strands within them, like Hamas and Hezbollah where they are allies of Iran rather than just pure proxies. So the first regional response to 7 October was the Houthis firing missiles at Israel - from my understanding that was very much not what Iran wanted at that point. Similarly I believe the Houthis have had recruitment drives of Gaza, including even (falsely) saying that if you sign up you might even be sent to Gaza to fight there. Iran has a lot of influence, they are allies and Iran is the leader of that alliance but I don't think the Houthis just do as they're told.
The other side is Saudi as there is a peace deal now more or less agreed with Saudi - which basically involves the Saudis paying lots of money to the Houthis. They will basically unfreeze revenue from the sale of oil and gas from Houthi areas to pay the salary of public employees in Houthi held Yemen which the Houthis haven't been paying - and restoring the capaciy of export more generally.
What's interesting is that the Houthis have been very much trying to separate what they're doing in the Red Sea (which would, obviously impact their own ability to export) from that peace deal. They're basically saying they're two separate tracks. So far the Saudis have gone along with that. And you can sympathise with the Saudis wanting to keep their peace deal separate from these attacks too - the West tolerated their war in Yemen and provided the weapons, but we didn't rush aircraft carriers when Houthi missiles were being fired into Saudi. Why should they put peace and the security of their southern border on hold because now the West cares.
It is not an escalation. Side A was shooting at Side B. Side B is now shooting back. The point of escalation was Side A starting to shoot.
It's only in a passive nihilistic time like ours that it could ever be expected by anyone that such attacks would have been kept without a reply.
Pre Oct 2023, Iran's most significant diplomatic initiative was detente with Saudi Arabia, with the effect that the Yemini Civil War went from a hot war to an effectively frozen conflict. By taking it to the Little Satan Zionist Entity, the Houthis may be inoculating themselves from further Saudi aggression on the theory that the Saudis wouldn't want to be perceived as indirectly supporting Israel.
But it's hard to see the logic in that because there wasn't any indication the Saudis had any plan to restart hostilities. Quite to the contrary, the one thing that could endanger the solid Houthi position is if other outside powers got involved in an escalating conflict. Before Oct 23, the Biden administration indirectly facilitated the cease fire by halting support for the Saudis in Yemen, which in turn prompted the Saudis to entertain the Iranian diplomatic initiatives. Pissing off the USA and drawing the US Navy into the region seems like a very risky move, the one thing that could conceivably result in an event chain that could worsen the Houthi position in Yemen. Biden is notoriously wary of getting entangled in overseas deployment but attacking shipping lanes in an election year where consumer prices is a major issue is going to prompt a response from even the most reluctant C-in-C. And there is no cover or couterweight to appeal to: the Russians are otherwise engaged and the one thing China and the US can still agree on is that you don't screw around with commercial shipping in the Red Sea.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 12, 2024, 09:36:20 AMAnd you can sympathise with the Saudis wanting to keep their peace deal separate from these attacks too - the West tolerated their war in Yemen and provided the weapons, but we didn't rush aircraft carriers when Houthi missiles were being fired into Saudi. Why should they put peace and the security of their southern border on hold because now the West cares.
Sure but MBS is not known for his humility and extreme caution. He is likely to stick with the current policy as things stand for the moment, but if the Houthi-US tit-for-tat escalates and an opportunity arises to restart the conflict on a more favorable correlation of forces, will he roll the dice?
Egypt is a big potential interesting factor in all this.
Obviously with their population they have to be on the Gazans side....but at the same time the shit in the red sea and shipping avoiding suez is not acceptable for them.
Also, there must be serious resources and effort going into anti drone r & d.
It's just crazy it takes a million pound missile to stop a 2000 pound drone.
I wonder whether anti drone drones are an option.
Quote from: Tamas on January 12, 2024, 09:35:29 AMQuote from: Josquius on January 12, 2024, 08:26:47 AMQuote from: Tamas on January 12, 2024, 08:25:13 AMThe way I see it there are two basic options:
1. do nothing - Iran gets the destabilisation and damage it wants by causing economic and thus political damages for its perceived rivals. Succeed or fail, there's no risk or high cost for Iran and its allies.
2. return fire - Iran may or may not get the destabilisation and damage it wants via triggering further escalation in the region. Succeed or fail, there's significant risk and cost for Iran and its allies.
It's a no-brainer. The only guaranteed way for us to lose is to not hit back.
Or
3. Figure out a way to stop the fighting.
The true answer lies with a mix of 2 and 3. Israel getting back to sanity is very possible which should cool things there but of course that's not happening overnight and in the meantime we have to defend ourselves.
Trying to pressure Israel in the background is one thing.
But I couldn't possibly fathom a worst response to violence on your own civilians, than doing exactly what the perpetrator wants you to do. There MUST be an answer to that.
Or do you suggest the world just does whatever the Houthis want from now on until eternity?
In other words: don't be this guy:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhttpschef.bbci.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fic%2F640x360%2Fp0483lnp.jpg&hash=b42a39428c6440c9ac643b4cc9d1e59b2bdfe209)
But you're proposing doing exactly what they want and escalating.
What they do or don't want is a factor but only so far as it informs understanding their overall goals and how to stop them achieving them. We shouldn't automatically do the complete opposite just to spite them.
That they want us to start bombing an escalate doesn't mean that option should be totally off the table. But it does mean we have to put a bit of thought into it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 12, 2024, 09:57:07 AMSure but MBS is not known for his humility and extreme caution. He is likely to stick with the current policy as things stand for the moment, but if the Houthi-US tit-for-tat escalates and an opportunity arises to restart the conflict on a more favorable correlation of forces, will he roll the dice?
Fair point. In a way I think if the Saudis waded back in that would be even more likely than US action to regionalise things, because I think to OvB's point Iran will be more careful with the US.
I think the US had a role in causing the shift from Saudi, but I also think they lost. They weren't anywhere near obtaining their obectives in Yemen and it was becoming (not for the first time) a bit of a quagmire for Saudi (and friends). Sitting in London and seeing a crisis around the Red Sea, transit through Suez and the North of Yemen - I'm not as convinced of how easy it would be to weaken the Houthis position.
Although is Biden notoriously wary? I'd thought that through his career Biden (thinking back to the Senate) was normally pretty gung-ho/interventionist on the going in, but did tend to turn more quickly on the pulling out? Is that not fair?
China - and Trump - I think are other interesting angles where I'm not sure how they'd land if this is an ongoing problem.
Quote from: Josquius on January 12, 2024, 10:12:23 AMBut you're proposing doing exactly what they want and escalating.
What they do or don't want is a factor but only so far as it informs understanding their overall goals and how to stop them achieving them. We shouldn't automatically do the complete opposite just to spite them.
That they want us to start bombing an escalate doesn't mean that option should be totally off the table. But it does mean we have to put a bit of thought into it.
What makes you think they want to escalate?
Yemen is in a state of civil war. No one recognizes the Houthis as the official state reps. I hope the west are funding the actual Yemeni government forces in the South.
We're really back to the Cold War shenanigans aren't we. Fucking russians.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2024, 11:02:16 AMQuote from: Josquius on January 12, 2024, 10:12:23 AMBut you're proposing doing exactly what they want and escalating.
What they do or don't want is a factor but only so far as it informs understanding their overall goals and how to stop them achieving them. We shouldn't automatically do the complete opposite just to spite them.
That they want us to start bombing an escalate doesn't mean that option should be totally off the table. But it does mean we have to put a bit of thought into it.
What makes you think they want to escalate?
October 7 and the red sea attacks?
Quote from: Josquius on January 12, 2024, 11:22:43 AMQuote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2024, 11:02:16 AMQuote from: Josquius on January 12, 2024, 10:12:23 AMBut you're proposing doing exactly what they want and escalating.
What they do or don't want is a factor but only so far as it informs understanding their overall goals and how to stop them achieving them. We shouldn't automatically do the complete opposite just to spite them.
That they want us to start bombing an escalate doesn't mean that option should be totally off the table. But it does mean we have to put a bit of thought into it.
What makes you think they want to escalate?
October 7 and the red sea attacks?
As much as the US and Israel have tried to pin the blame on Iran, it seems the Iranians weren't directly involved. The Iranians do not appear to want to escalate. If they did they could done quite a bit more like launch a full strike on Israel from the North, right now they seem to just want the war to end so Hamas survives. The Houthis attacking shipping might be a way to put pressure on Western governments so they put pressure on the Israelis to stop the war and save Hamas.
I think if the Houthis had actually been able to competently target only "Israeli-linked shipping" it may have had a better affect, but because they either lack the ability to discern that or just want to target everyone (their public statements even as of today say they only target Israeli shipping, which is not accurate), they have launched attacks on ships totally unrelated to Israel, imperiling Suez trade in general.
Israel is actually less dependent on Suez economically than an umber of other regional players--and importantly China ships a lot of things through Suez and is generally double plus unhappy with anything that negatively impacts its trade.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2024, 11:32:42 AMQuote from: Josquius on January 12, 2024, 11:22:43 AMQuote from: Razgovory on January 12, 2024, 11:02:16 AMQuote from: Josquius on January 12, 2024, 10:12:23 AMBut you're proposing doing exactly what they want and escalating.
What they do or don't want is a factor but only so far as it informs understanding their overall goals and how to stop them achieving them. We shouldn't automatically do the complete opposite just to spite them.
That they want us to start bombing an escalate doesn't mean that option should be totally off the table. But it does mean we have to put a bit of thought into it.
What makes you think they want to escalate?
October 7 and the red sea attacks?
As much as the US and Israel have tried to pin the blame on Iran, it seems the Iranians weren't directly involved. The Iranians do not appear to want to escalate. If they did they could done quite a bit more like launch a full strike on Israel from the North, right now they seem to just want the war to end so Hamas survives. The Houthis attacking shipping might be a way to put pressure on Western governments so they put pressure on the Israelis to stop the war and save Hamas.
This isn't the assessment I'd take.
Everything is going as planned for Iran. Obviously they weren't directly responsible but it's unlikely Hamas would have gone ahead without their support. The timing especially is very convenient for Iran and Russia.
It makes no sense Iran would have cold feet and want to stop now when everything is going the way they expected, support for Ukraine dropping, Israel trashing it's reputation, and the global economy is just starting to feel the pinch.
In Gaza especially the longer Israel stays involved there the happier iran is. There's very little cost to them, they don't have to get directly involved at all, and it's causing a lot of hurt for their enemies and helping out their ally Russia.
For the Houthis it may be as simple as the problem that regularly occurs with that kind of militant movement when the conflict that was their raison d'etre winds down. You are left with lots of heavily armed and under-employed young men with militant world views and a penchant for violence. If you don't find some outlet for that malign energy, they will find one themselves.
Germany intervenes in South Africa's ICJ case on behalf of Israel, saying South Africa's claims have "no basis in fact" and rejecting them as an attempt to turn ICJ processes into political pawns.
I will note South Africa is a genuine "shit hole" country of corruption and fealty to Russia / China, that has openly supported genocide in the recent past as well as praises genocidal leaders and gives them safe haven in South Africa. SA is not a good actor on the international stage, and lefties should be leery of getting on board with their antisemitic antics.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/germany-says-will-intervene-at-the-hague-on-israels-behalf-blasts-genocide-charge/
QuoteGermany says will intervene at The Hague on Israel's behalf, blasts genocide charge
Berlin suggests will intrude in South Africa's primary case in which ICJ will decide if Israel violated Genocide Convention; PM speaks with Scholz, praises 'stance on side of truth'
By AFP, JACOB MAGID and JEREMY SHARON
Today, 8:30 pm
The German government sharply rejected on Friday allegations before the UN's top court that Israel is committing "genocide" in Gaza and warned against "political instrumentalization" of the charge, as it announced it would intervene as a third party before the International Court of Justice.
Government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit said in a statement that Israel was "defending itself" after the "inhuman" onslaught by Hamas on October 7.
He said Germany would intervene as a third party before the International Court of Justice under an article allowing states to seek clarification on the use of a multilateral convention.
The move allows Germany to present its own case to the court that Israel has not infringed the genocide convention and has not committed or intended to commit genocide.
Germany is not claiming to be legally impacted by South Africa's case and therefore it does not require the ICJ's permission for third-party intervention.
As a signatory of the 1948 Genocide Convention, it has the right to join cases and put forward its arguments on the case. The convention was enacted in the wake of the mass murder of Jews in the Holocaust, and defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."
Hebestreit stated that Germany "intends to intervene as a third party in the main hearing," suggesting Berlin will intrude in South Africa's primary case against Israel in which the court could take years to decide whether or not Israel has violated the Genocide Convention.
Accordingly, the move does not appear to influence this week's proceedings — hearings where South Africa has requested an interim injunction from the court compelling Israel to implement a ceasefire. A decision on that more immediate matter is expected within one month.
"In light of German history and the crimes against humanity of the Shoah, the German government is particularly committed to the [UN] Genocide Convention," signed in 1948 in the wake of the Holocaust, Hebestreit said.
He said the Convention marked a "central instrument" under international law to prevent another Holocaust.
For this reason, he said, "we stand firmly against a political instrumentalization" of the Convention.
Hebestreit acknowledged diverging views in the international community on Israel's military operation against Hamas in Gaza.
"However the German government decisively and expressly rejects the accusation of genocide brought against Israel before the International Court of Justice," he said.
"The accusation has no basis in fact," he said.
The Prime Minister's Office said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhau had spoken with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and thanked him for Berlin's decision.
"Your stance and Germany's stance on the side of the truth moves all the citizens of Israel," Netanyahu told Scholz, according to the PMO.
"The blood libel, which is full of hypocrisy and malice, must not be allowed to prevail over the moral principles shared by our two countries and the entire civilized world," Netanyahu said.
Scholz was the first of a number of Western leaders who made solidarity visits in the days after the October 7 onslaught.
Scholz said at the time that his country "has only one place" during the hard times in which the Jewish state finds itself, "and that is alongside Israel." He also stated that Israel has the right and obligation under international law to protect its civilians.
Earlier Friday, Israel's legal team in The Hague attacked the fundamental claims of South Africa's genocide allegations in the International Court of Justice, and punched holes in the accusations that Israel's state organs have genocidal intent against the Palestinians in Gaza during the current conflict with Hamas.
Israel's six legal representatives asserted that the ICJ has no jurisdiction over the complaints brought by South Africa since they relate to the laws of armed conflict, not genocide; argued that "random" inflammatory comments of Israeli politicians did not reflect policy determined in the state bodies making war policy; and insisted that the widespread harm to Palestinian civilians during the war was a result of Hamas's massive use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes, and not genocidal acts.
They also underlined in depth the steps Israel has taken to warn civilians to evacuate from Israel Defense Forces operational areas and to provide humanitarian assistance to Palestinian civilians, including facilitating the establishment of field hospitals in Gaza to aid Gazans and mitigate harm to them.
The war was triggered by the October 7 Hamas-led massacre, when some 3,000 terrorists burst across the border by land, air and sea, killing some 1,200 people and seizing over 240 hostages of all ages.
Vowing to destroy the terror group after the devastating assault, Israel launched a wide-scale military campaign in Gaza, which the Hamas-run health ministry has said killed over 23,000 people since. These figures cannot be independently verified, and are believed to include both civilians and Hamas members killed in Gaza, including as a consequence of terror groups' own rocket misfires. The IDF says it has killed over 8,500 operatives in Gaza, in addition to some 1,000 terrorists inside Israel on October 7.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 12, 2024, 03:29:13 PMI will note South Africa is a genuine "shit hole" country of corruption and fealty to Russia / China, that has openly supported genocide in the recent past as well as praises genocidal leaders and gives them safe haven in South Africa. SA is not a good actor on the international stage, and lefties should be leery of getting on board with their antisemitic antics.
a lesson the lefties in belgium need to learn, forthwith.
Quote from: Josquius on January 12, 2024, 12:28:29 PMThis isn't the assessment I'd take.
Everything is going as planned for Iran. Obviously they weren't directly responsible but it's unlikely Hamas would have gone ahead without their support. The timing especially is very convenient for Iran and Russia.
It makes no sense Iran would have cold feet and want to stop now when everything is going the way they expected, support for Ukraine dropping, Israel trashing it's reputation, and the global economy is just starting to feel the pinch.
In Gaza especially the longer Israel stays involved there the happier iran is. There's very little cost to them, they don't have to get directly involved at all, and it's causing a lot of hurt for their enemies and helping out their ally Russia.
Iran has called for a ceasefire. If the war continues they'll lose an ally they've invested a lot of time and money on. The Iranians have not shown any appetite for direct conflict with the US, which is what further escalation entails.
Time for my usual rant again. Guardian live coverage;s BIG FRONT PAGE NEWS:
QuoteAll maritime navigation in danger after US strikes on Yemen, Hezbollah warns
The Lebanese-based Iranian backed group, Hezbollah, has said the US was mistaken if it believed Yemen's Houthis would stop confronting Israel in the Red Sea, warning that American actions there had endangered all maritime navigation.
Describing US and British strikes on Yemen as an act of stupidity, Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said the Houthis would continue targeting ships belonging to Israel and going to its ports, Reuters reports.
Why is it necessary to treat such a ridiculous comment with any sort of prominence? When Trump says something stupid there's always an explanation of how that is incorrect. In this case, it's a ludicrous claim that the Houthis have a way of telling which cargo ship over there in the distance has israeli owernship or cargo bound to of from Israel. Even if we get over that, is it then the US' fault that the Houthis forgo their telepathic abilities and start targeting ships indiscriminately?
BTW has there been any new attack on cargo ships since the airstrikes?
They took a swing at a Russian tanker and missed. The Houthis have access to the internet, there are websites for monitoring ships and they can find out who owns them. The Russian ship seems to have been attacked because of old data. Or the Houthis are just attacking ships randomly.
Nasrallah wants to look big putting out statements, but all he is saying is the Houthis will continue attacks. He doesn't seem to want to actually get involved in this fight.
Yeah, if I can track the boats carrying my kickstarter boardgames, the houtis can track what boats are crossing in front of them. I don't think they give much of a damn what they fire on, though.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/16/iran-launches-airstrikes-on-sunni-militant-bases-in-pakistan
I am eagerly awaiting the various "this is a dangerous escalation" news and articles from The Guardian like we had with the US and the UK defending international shipping.
Quote from: Tamas on January 17, 2024, 06:52:43 AMhttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/16/iran-launches-airstrikes-on-sunni-militant-bases-in-pakistan
I am eagerly awaiting the various "this is a dangerous escalation" news and articles from The Guardian like we had with the US and the UK defending international shipping.
Speaking of escalation...
https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/1747733137000472579
https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/1747801044644405479
https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/1747805708823724058
QuoteVery concerning chatter about an escalating crisis between #Iran & #Pakistan tonight, as:
- Both militaries mobilize on the border
- Pakistani fighter jets buzz the Iranian border
- Hurried Chinese mediation breaks down.
All since #Iran's Jan 16 missile attack on #Balochistan.
BREAKING - #huge explosion just reported inside the #IRGC base outside Saravan in #Iran's Sistan-Baluchistan (~25km from #Pakistan).
Comes amid acute tensions on the #Iran-#Pakistan border, since #Iran's missile strike in #Baluchistan on Jan 16.
NEW -- #Pakistan's military confirms military action (missile strikes) inside #Iran, targeting "bases belonging to terrorist separatist groups."
Unclear if local claims of an #IRGC base are accurate *and/or* the target was a Balochi group, like BLA.
On the Pdox boards (which I have sorta come back to), there was one of those guys going on about his refusal to support the continued "American Hegemony". You assholes are dangerously close to getting what you want. One of these days we won't be able to keep a lid on this kind of thing and the world will be in a word of shit.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 18, 2024, 01:29:55 AMOn the Pdox boards (which I have sorta come back to), there was one of those guys going on about his refusal to support the continued "American Hegemony". You assholes are dangerously close to getting what you want. One of these days we won't be able to keep a lid on this kind of thing and the world will be in a word of shit.
Indeed, people whining about "us hegemony" don't know what they're saying. Or maybe they do, in which case they're some shade of bad
So in the US the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is increasing framed as a conflict between indigenous people vs non-indigenous people. (It's also framed as a battle against white supremacy but let's not get into that can of worms right now) I was curious why Arabs are indigenous and Jews are not. What I found was the "indigenous" is fairly confusing, incoherent mess that doesn't seem to mean what I thought it meant. In fact, I'm not actually clear what it means, but I found a strange statistic. According to the UN https://www.un.org/en/fight-racism/...n, at least in,non-dominant sector of society.
475 million indigenous people in the world or 6.2% of the population of the world. The rest of the population is... not indigenous? I'm an American of European ancestry so I didn't expect to be considered indigenous. But I guess I'm not indigenous to Europe and neither are the Europeans. Or at least not most to them. The Roma are indigenous though. I thought they were fairly new comers. This is really confusing. Helpfully the UN declaration on the rights of the Indigenous doesn't define Indigenous, but the UN does know how many there are.
So is anyone indigenous to Palestine?
Key to the UN definition is that they're minorities distinct from the communities around them.
That say Germans are indingenous to Germany is pretty "well duh" and not worth noting. They're the majority. They have all the power. The country is called Germany. Everyone knows them.
The Sorbs on the other hand? Easy for the world to just ignore their existence which if the German government was a bit nationalist inclined wouldn't be very nice for them.
The Palestinians are a bit different to most indigineous peoples under the UN definition by virtue of their sheer size. But they do share the traits of not having political power and inhabiting a small area under the rule of the empowered majority.
Usually this majority can be "indigenous" itself like the Germans. It's not the "we were here first" factor that really matters with the definition.
But most Israelis obviously aren't. They're largely descendents of colonists from within the past century.
Which puts them in a very fuzzy place right now. They can't just be kicked out and told to go home as they are home. They were born there. So long has passed now. But at the same time the events that led to Israels creation aren't firmly something for the history books, the direct impact is still hitting today and an acceptable resolution hasn't been reached
As I said before the UN has no definition. the Jews might have been indigenous to Palestine if they few and powerless and oppressed. Which is how the world prefers them I suppose. Still it interesting that "indigenous" has nothing really to do with being indigenous in the real sense of the world. It's about power and posturing. The recent massacre has been so illuminating.
I remember hearing indirectly from a Palestinian that they believe themselves direct descendants of one of these peoples mentioned in the old testament ergo they have more right to the land than the Jews.
Which is quite common I guess, you have the same line of thought regarding Hungarian ancestry with various whacky theories on the Hungarian far-right as well.
QuoteI remember hearing indirectly from a Palestinian that they believe themselves direct descendants of one of these peoples mentioned in the old testament ergo they have more right to the land than the Jews.
Which is quite common I guess, you have the same line of thought regarding Hungarian ancestry with various whacky theories on the Hungarian far-right as well.
Arguing who has more right to be somewhere based on genetic links millenia ago is a pretty crap way to do things.
But they would be right on the genetics. The Palestinians do have more of a direct descent from the people living in Palestine thousands of years ago than do most Israelis.
I've honestly never ran into anyone using this argument to push the Palestinian case, its usually pro-Israel folk trying to argue on this basis.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 18, 2024, 07:36:28 AMAs I said before the UN has no definition. the Jews might have been indigenous to Palestine if they few and powerless and oppressed. Which is how the world prefers them I suppose. Still it interesting that "indigenous" has nothing really to do with being indigenous in the real sense of the world. It's about power and posturing. The recent massacre has been so illuminating.
The UN certainly uses the word.
And sure. If history had gone different the natives would be majority Jewish. No Israel and the events leading up to it and you'd have the local Jews regarded as an indigenous minority.
I'm not sure what you mean about the massacre (meaning the 7th October?) being illuminating here.
It seems quite straight forward to me and nothing about power and posturing. It absolutely is about being indigenous, but also about being a minority.
That Palestinians are the decedents of Caanan and the Jews are actually the decedents of the Khazars is the standard line for the PLO. The massacre was Oct 7th. The word "Indigenous" means simply coming from the land you currently are in. The idea of "Indigenousness" is about asserting power.
Palestine was very underpopulated for most of the Ottoman period. During the Herodian era, the population of Jerusalem was around 50-100K and the total population of the region was over 1 million. It was probably around 1/4 of that size for most of the Ottoman period. Of course the crusaders massacred or scared off the entire Jewish and Muslim population of Jerusalem so that population during the Ottoman period must have consisted of subsequent immigrants or returning refugees. That said, it's reasonable to assume that most of the Muslim and Christian "Palestinians" that became part of the mandate could trace back to the inhabitants of that land during the Roman Empire. Tracing back to ancient Canaan is purely speculative. FWIW - and I don't think it matters much - genetic analysis has tended to indicate that modern day Jews do indeed trace descent to a founder population from the region as well.
Quote from: Tamas on January 18, 2024, 11:09:23 AMI remember hearing indirectly from a Palestinian that they believe themselves direct descendants of one of these peoples mentioned in the old testament ergo they have more right to the land than the Jews.
Which is quite common I guess, you have the same line of thought regarding Hungarian ancestry with various whacky theories on the Hungarian far-right as well.
Israelis claim the same shit.
Plus the right of conquest.
After 75 years of war, both sides make all kind of claims.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 18, 2024, 01:45:21 PMPalestine was very underpopulated for most of the Ottoman period. During the Herodian era, the population of Jerusalem was around 50-100K and the total population of the region was over 1 million. It was probably around 1/4 of that size for most of the Ottoman period. Of course the crusaders massacred or scared off the entire Jewish and Muslim population of Jerusalem so that population during the Ottoman period must have consisted of subsequent immigrants or returning refugees. That said, it's reasonable to assume that most of the Muslim and Christian "Palestinians" that became part of the mandate could trace back to the inhabitants of that land during the Roman Empire. Tracing back to ancient Canaan is purely speculative. FWIW - and I don't think it matters much - genetic analysis has tended to indicate that modern day Jews do indeed trace descent to a founder population from the region as well.
The Jewish Virtual Library will give you the precise numbers for both groups since the Ottoman regime.
As for genetics, indeed, we discussed this befor3, very early on. The differences are philosophical, not genetical.
With his repeated dismissal of the idea of a Palestinian state (which I think is new from him) Netanhau is really showcasing that there will not be stop to the violence while he is in power. For quite a while now he has been fleeing toward political escalation to avoid prison and now because Oct 7 happened under his watch he must continue to escalate militarily. A lull in the violence would allow his rivals and critics to seriously raise his responsibility.
If memory serves he has always opposed it, well at least since 1996.
Yeah. He has always been a staunch opponent to US policy and our interests.
But we support him anyway.
Eh, that isn't so simple. The U.S. has strategic and political reasons it supports Israel, once you establish relationships like that with a country, it is a sticky matter to threaten to sever or curtail them because their democratic political system sometimes produces leaders you don't like.
For example the U.S./U.K. relationship isn't threatened on either side of the Atlantic when you have a Conservative PM and a Dem President, or vice versa. To some degree if you have relationships like that you have to respect the democratic process within those allied countries.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 23, 2024, 11:27:50 AMFor example the U.S./U.K. relationship isn't threatened on either side of the Atlantic when you have a Conservative PM and a Dem President, or vice versa. To some degree if you have relationships like that you have to respect the democratic process within those allied countries.
True, but only up to the point where national interest is at stake. Ike had respect for Eden, but that didn't translate into underwriting the Suez adventure. The problem that Bibi poses for the US is not ideological compatibility with the present administration or political differences between Israel in the US on various issues, but that his own peculiar personal interests and incentives are driving a war policy that threatens to drag the United States into as escalating quagmire of conflict in an area of the world that objectively is secondary to US strategic interests.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 23, 2024, 11:27:50 AMFor example the U.S./U.K. relationship isn't threatened on either side of the Atlantic when you have a Conservative PM and a Dem President, or vice versa. To some degree if you have relationships like that you have to respect the democratic process within those allied countries.
I guess if Corbyn had been elected PM while Trump was president that relationship would have been threatened.
Corbyn has previously supported withdrawing from NATO (he thinks NATO should be disbanded as alliances increase risk in his view) and unilateral nuclear disarmament as well as opposing US bases in the UK/talking about having them shut down.
The party forced him to not quite go all in on that stuff. But I think whoever was US President would find the prospect a little concerning.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 23, 2024, 04:06:43 PMCorbyn has previously supported withdrawing from NATO (he thinks NATO should be disbanded as alliances increase risk in his view) and unilateral nuclear disarmament as well as opposing US bases in the UK/talking about having them shut down.
The party forced him to not quite go all in on that stuff. But I think whoever was US President would find the prospect a little concerning.
Trump would love the idea of shutting down NATO and closing all the US bases overseas. And he would have no problem with the UK shedding its nukes.
The left-right divide is real, but there is plenty of room for agreement on the axis of crazy and crazy.
:D
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 23, 2024, 04:06:43 PMCorbyn has previously supported withdrawing from NATO (he thinks NATO should be disbanded as alliances increase risk in his view) and unilateral nuclear disarmament as well as opposing US bases in the UK/talking about having them shut down.
The party forced him to not quite go all in on that stuff. But I think whoever was US President would find the prospect a little concerning.
To be fair, that's far less mad of a thing to say pre 2022 than post.
Though given he was still saying it after 2014 it's not that much benefit of the doubt he deserves.
Though again to give him credit the one actual good thing I'd have to say about him is he was a democrat when it came to representing the party average rather than just his fringe views.
I do want to see that alternate reality where president trump meets pm Corbyn....
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 23, 2024, 04:11:01 PMTrump would love the idea of shutting down NATO and closing all the US bases overseas. And he would have no problem with the UK shedding its nukes.
The left-right divide is real, but there is plenty of room for agreement on the axis of crazy and crazy.
:lol: Fair. It might even have been the pretext.
QuoteTo be fair, that's far less mad of a thing to say pre 2022 than post.
I'm not sure that's true. The world was the same. The world pre-2022 is what resulted in the world post-2022.
QuoteThough given he was still saying it after 2014 it's not that much benefit of the doubt he deserves.
He's been saying it since the 80s. But you're right the foreign policy - NATO, EU is really the only area where the moderate wing were able to win and force Corbyn to at least modify his position slightly.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, even NATO was trying to figure out what NATO should be doing. Many were questioning what if any role it had. Hindsight is marvelous but not very helpful in analyzing the valid policy options that were open without the benefit of hindsight. Unless, of course, one believes that all outcomes are inevitable, and our actions don't impact the future. But that's another philosophical discussion.
Yeah - although Corbyn's views don't change. He opposed NATO when first election in 1983 and that is constant through to 2023.
I think it also depends on perspective. I think that was a debate within the west of the west. But every single central and eastern European country made joining NATO a priority and all of them did. So I think there was less doubt about its purpose there - in every case, I think, NATO membership preceded EU membership. Partly because it's less demanding, but also, I suspect, because there was a view in CEE (and possibly Brussels?) that you needed to get security sorted before you could EU accession.
I think NATO was in a particularly hard place in the 00s more than the 90s.
It found a place... But that place was in being used for dodgy America military adventures abroad.
I do get why it seemed increasingly pointless before Russia invaded Ukraine - the main challenge was from China afterall which is outside natos scope then there was a lot of hope for EU military integration (christ those ignorant shit heads in 2016 with their EU army nonsense... If only that were remotely practical! Had one going on about sitting in trenches on the Russian front. Which in hindsight... Maybe not so mad as it seems excepting the EU part)
Hell. Pre financial crisis even China wasn't seen as much of a problem. Liberal economics would definitely lead to democratic reform.
I wouldn't dismiss people calling for an end to nato completely in that period. It was a valid discussion.
Though I wager my reasons (expansion beyond the north Atlantic) are different to theirs (just have no weapons and everything works out. And American imperialism boo. Oh. Brown envelope of rubles. Lovely)
This gets worse and worse the more you read it...
source:
https://x.com/yuval_abraham/status/1750123648533324158?s=20
https://t.co/BHtOr7BfTk
QuoteIsraeli intelligence secretly surveilled officials in Gaza's Health Ministry to check if their data on the number of civilians killed in Gaza is 'reliable', Israeli intelligence sources told us.
The army found the numbers are reliable and now regularly uses them internally in intelligence briefings.
According to two sources, Israeli intelligence has no good independent measure of the total number of civilians the army killed in Gaza, making the Health Ministry's data their main source of information.
One reason for this is that officers conducted hundreds of AI-directed assassination strikes against suspected low-level Hamas operatives, usually by destroying entire homes and killing entire families – a practice we previously termed a 'mass assassination factory'. There was often no bomb damage assessment (BDA) for these strikes, meaning there was no check on who and how many civilians were killed. This routine post-strike check was skipped to 'save time'.
'I don't know how many people I killed as collateral damage. We only check that information for senior Hamas targets,' one source said. 'In other cases I didn't care. I immediately moved on to the next target. The focus was on creating as many targets as quickly as possible. That's why I trust the Health Ministry in Gaza more than the IDF for these statistics. The army just doesn't have the information.'
Quote from: Zoupa on January 25, 2024, 01:33:21 PMThis gets worse and worse the more you read it...
source:
https://x.com/yuval_abraham/status/1750123648533324158?s=20
https://t.co/BHtOr7BfTk
QuoteIsraeli intelligence secretly surveilled officials in Gaza's Health Ministry to check if their data on the number of civilians killed in Gaza is 'reliable', Israeli intelligence sources told us.
The army found the numbers are reliable and now regularly uses them internally in intelligence briefings.
According to two sources, Israeli intelligence has no good independent measure of the total number of civilians the army killed in Gaza, making the Health Ministry's data their main source of information.
One reason for this is that officers conducted hundreds of AI-directed assassination strikes against suspected low-level Hamas operatives, usually by destroying entire homes and killing entire families – a practice we previously termed a 'mass assassination factory'. There was often no bomb damage assessment (BDA) for these strikes, meaning there was no check on who and how many civilians were killed. This routine post-strike check was skipped to 'save time'.
'I don't know how many people I killed as collateral damage. We only check that information for senior Hamas targets,' one source said. 'In other cases I didn't care. I immediately moved on to the next target. The focus was on creating as many targets as quickly as possible. That's why I trust the Health Ministry in Gaza more than the IDF for these statistics. The army just doesn't have the information.'
So the source of the story is a Hebrew news site "Local Call". Google Translate continues to give amazing translations. The source in the story are "two Israeli intelligence sources".
It's one of those where I have no idea if this is a reputable source or not. I'm not exactly an expert on Israeli news outlets. I've heard of Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post, and Local Call isn't either of those outlets...
What the article says is that IDF Intelligence has no reliable means of assessing the death toll so they use the GHM estimates which they assume to be reliable for that purpose. They do not use - and in fact reject - the Gaza authorities' estimates for how many of those killed were militants. Mr. Abraham neglected to mention the latter point in his summary.
QuoteWhat the article says is that IDF Intelligence has no reliable means of assessing the death toll so they use the GHM estimates which they assume to be reliable for that purpose. They do not use - and in fact reject - the Gaza authorities' estimates for how many of those killed were militants. Mr. Abraham neglected to mention the latter point in his summary.
Surely doing this you'd run into problems defining militant. I imagine there's a lack of paperwork even amongst the groups for who belongs to them and they're quite unofficial.
Quote from: Barrister on January 25, 2024, 01:46:12 PMQuote from: Zoupa on January 25, 2024, 01:33:21 PMThis gets worse and worse the more you read it...
source:
https://x.com/yuval_abraham/status/1750123648533324158?s=20
https:// as possible. That's why I trust the Health Ministry in Gaza more than the IDF for these statistics. The army just doesn't have the information.'
So the source of the story is a Hebrew news site "Local Call". Google Translate continues to give amazing translations. The source in the story are "two Israeli intelligence sources".
It's one of those where I have no idea if this is a reputable source or not. I'm not exactly an expert on Israeli news outlets. I've heard of Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post, and Local Call isn't either of those outlets...
[/quote]
Typical. After months of the ardent Israel fans trying to shit on Palestinian numbers because Hamas runs the ministry of health.
Quote from: Josquius on January 25, 2024, 04:55:34 PMSurely doing this you'd run into problems defining militant.
Huge problems because they wear civilian clothes, inhabit civilian buildings and deliberately blend in.
Quote from: Josquius on January 25, 2024, 04:55:34 PMTypical. After months of the ardent Israel fans trying to shit on Palestinian numbers because Hamas runs the ministry of health.
What's "typical"?
Zoupa posts a link. I comment that I've never heard of this source and don't know whether to trust it or not. I didn't say it was "fake news" or anything - I just didn't know. It's a mystery.
I mean surely that's just good media hygiene?
I mean that's the issue with the internet - anyone with a couple of bucks can get a domain name and start publishing news. You have to be aware of what you're looking at.
If you (or Zoupa) have more information about the reliability of "Local Call" I'd be happy to review it. My own googling turned up very little. That's always a red flag, but admittedly since it publishes in Hebrew it's hard to search in English.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2024, 05:17:56 PMQuote from: Josquius on January 25, 2024, 04:55:34 PMSurely doing this you'd run into problems defining militant.
Huge problems because they wear civilian clothes, inhabit civilian buildings and deliberately blend in.
I know you know this Joan, but for others...
Hamas very deliberately does not follow the "rules of war". They deliberately target Israeli civilians, and they similarly try to take steps to maximize their own civilian casualties as it both fits their religious POV but feel it helps them in the wider PR cause.
Quote from: Barrister on January 25, 2024, 05:20:13 PMQuote from: Josquius on January 25, 2024, 04:55:34 PMTypical. After months of the ardent Israel fans trying to shit on Palestinian numbers because Hamas runs the ministry of health.
What's "typical"?
Israel actually using the Palestinian numbers and thinking they're fine.
Quote from: Josquius on January 25, 2024, 05:40:04 PMQuote from: Barrister on January 25, 2024, 05:20:13 PMQuote from: Josquius on January 25, 2024, 04:55:34 PMTypical. After months of the ardent Israel fans trying to shit on Palestinian numbers because Hamas runs the ministry of health.
What's "typical"?
Israel actually using the Palestinian numbers and thinking they're fine.
Again - that's if you can accept "Local Call" as a reputable news source citing anonymous sources.
Can you?
I can't read Hebrew, but from what I can gather it was founded in 2014 and sounds lefty-ish.
QuoteLocal call It is an online magazine of field news, commentary and culture, powered by a collective of writers and writers, photographers and photographers.
Local call It is home to an activist press stemming from a commitment to democracy, opposition to occupation and striving for peace, equality, social justice, transparency and freedom of information – but serves no party, political movement or platform.
Local call Co-founded by "972 – for the Advancement of Civil Journalism", Just Vision, and the ActiveStills Photographer Collective, and co-published by Just Vision and 972. The views expressed on the site represent only their writers and not the local conversation as a whole.
Alongside grants from private foundations and donors, the site exists and maintains its independence mainly thanks to our readers and readers.
They seem to have mainly Israelis and Palestinians on staff. Nothing screams at me "fake news!!!!" in their other stories, but their editorials are peace-and-love (more or less).
I've worked in Israei/Jewish media for years and never heard of Local Call either.
And Google wasn't much help.
There's a Josephus joke in there somewhere I just can't figure it out.
:hmm:
Pdox Israel-Palestine thread is closed. Fucking Communist Chilean guy kept going on about dead kids and that broke the rules apparently.
Which side was he on? Dead Jewish kids or dead muslim kids?
Quote from: HVC on February 04, 2024, 08:26:27 PMWhich side was he on? Dead Jewish kids or dead muslim kids?
What are the odds of a communist wanting more dead Arab babies.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2024, 08:39:49 PMQuote from: HVC on February 04, 2024, 08:26:27 PMWhich side was he on? Dead Jewish kids or dead muslim kids?
What are the odds of a communist wanting more dead Arab babies.
Still sore against the afghans and Chechnyans?
Quote from: HVC on February 04, 2024, 08:26:27 PMWhich side was he on? Dead Jewish kids or dead muslim kids?
He was on the side of the "oppressed".
Quote from: Razgovory on February 04, 2024, 07:29:36 PMPdox Israel-Palestine thread is closed. Fucking Communist Chilean guy kept going on about dead kids and that broke the rules apparently.
Never got the logic of closing the thread because of one poster's behavior. You're basically giving the least behaved members of your forum a veto over what gets discussed.
There have been several bans. The pro-Palestine crowd can get a bit excitable. "Genocide!" "Genocide!". Man, I've seen about six or seven of these bombing campaigns, there is always plenty of Palestinians left.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 04, 2024, 08:44:53 PMQuote from: HVC on February 04, 2024, 08:26:27 PMWhich side was he on? Dead Jewish kids or dead muslim kids?
He was on the side of the "oppressed".
Then he was pro-Likud.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 04, 2024, 09:11:52 PMThere have been several bans. The pro-Palestine crowd can get a bit excitable. "Genocide!" "Genocide!". Man, I've seen about six or seven of these bombing campaigns, there is always plenty of Palestinians left.
When was the last time you have seen an attack on Gaza like this. The occupation of Gaza might come close. But what are the 5 or 6 others you have in mind?
There is no attack on Gaza. There was a Gazan attack on Israel, and an Israeli campaign in response to that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 05, 2024, 10:40:34 AMQuote from: Razgovory on February 04, 2024, 09:11:52 PMThere have been several bans. The pro-Palestine crowd can get a bit excitable. "Genocide!" "Genocide!". Man, I've seen about six or seven of these bombing campaigns, there is always plenty of Palestinians left.
When was the last time you have seen an attack on Gaza like this. The occupation of Gaza might come close. But what are the 5 or 6 others you have in mind?
Israel bombs Gaza all the time.
2021
2014
2012
2008
2005
2001
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2024, 11:58:27 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 05, 2024, 10:40:34 AMQuote from: Razgovory on February 04, 2024, 09:11:52 PMThere have been several bans. The pro-Palestine crowd can get a bit excitable. "Genocide!" "Genocide!". Man, I've seen about six or seven of these bombing campaigns, there is always plenty of Palestinians left.
When was the last time you have seen an attack on Gaza like this. The occupation of Gaza might come close. But what are the 5 or 6 others you have in mind?
Israel bombs Gaza all the time.
2021
2014
2012
2008
2005
2001
And Gaza fires rockets into Israel all the time.
Wait, has this level of violence become normalized to the point that Raz can defend a position that this happens all the time, and BB corrects him by saying it goes both ways.
I think BB was pointing out the weakness of Raz statement, in that it is not really appropriate to lump in the Hamas attack into a genereal "Gaza attacks Israel all the time" category - just like it's not really appropriate to lump the current Israeli campaign in with previous actions.
Quote from: Jacob on February 05, 2024, 12:36:10 PMI think BB was pointing out the weakness of Raz statement, in that it is not really appropriate to lump in the Hamas attack into a genereal "Gaza attacks Israel all the time" category - just like it's not really appropriate to lump the current Israeli campaign in with previous actions.
Interesting, I thought he was saying all the dates Raz listed were all justified because "Gaza" does it all the time too.
also, note the shift of language which has occurred. It's not HAMAS, its Gaza. That gets around the troubling detail of the allegation of collective punishment being a war crime.
Communication is hard :lol:
Quote from: Jacob on February 05, 2024, 12:36:10 PMI think BB was pointing out the weakness of Raz statement, in that it is not really appropriate to lump in the Hamas attack into a genereal "Gaza attacks Israel all the time" category - just like it's not really appropriate to lump the current Israeli campaign in with previous actions.
Both October 7, 2023 - and the Israeli response - are not at all of a kind of the normalized, routine violence of the prior 20 years.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 05, 2024, 12:31:27 PMWait, has this level of violence become normalized to the point that Raz can defend a position that this happens all the time, and BB corrects him by saying it goes both ways.
Well, yeah. It's not because Egypt, Syria & Lebanon stayed out of this iteration that this isn't just one more Israel-Arab war. Arabs will lose again.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 05, 2024, 12:31:27 PMWait, has this level of violence become normalized to the point that Raz can defend a position that this happens all the time, and BB corrects him by saying it goes both ways.
The cries of genocide have indeed become normalized. Don't cry wolf.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2024, 01:02:04 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 05, 2024, 12:31:27 PMWait, has this level of violence become normalized to the point that Raz can defend a position that this happens all the time, and BB corrects him by saying it goes both ways.
The cries of genocide have indeed become normalized. Don't cry wolf.
Let's make sure we have a common frame of reference because I think you likely have in mind a different definition of the word.
Under the UN convention here is the definition:
Quotegenocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Under this definition a genocide can be committed even if, as you put it, some of the group survive.
As you will know, the UN court process has stopped short of declaring that Israel has committed genocide, but it has ordered that Israel use its best efforts to prevent it from occurring.
That is a practical decision because giving Israel a chance to moderate its behaviour now will likely save Palestinian lives.
I know of no other time when a court has said Israel has come close to the line of committing genocide and so I am a bit surprised by someone claiming this sort of thing happens all the time.
And nobody has claimed genocide before that?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2024, 01:43:35 PMAnd nobody has claimed genocide before that?
Perhaps, but I don't recall the claim being treated as having a great deal of validity until now.
Quote from: Barrister on February 05, 2024, 12:41:54 PMBoth October 7, 2023 - and the Israeli response - are not at all of a kind of the normalized, routine violence of the prior 20 years.
Agreed.
So this is a interesting event.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/feb/05/uk-professor-suffered-discrimination-due-to-anti-zionist-beliefs-tribunal-rules?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Unexpected someone would actually manage to win such a case given the general view in the country today.
Quote from: Josquius on February 05, 2024, 04:02:13 PMSo this is a interesting event.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/feb/05/uk-professor-suffered-discrimination-due-to-anti-zionist-beliefs-tribunal-rules?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Unexpected someone would actually manage to win such a case given the general view in the country today.
I think it's the wrong decision. But it's consistent - there's beem a lot of cases. It's unlawful to discriminate against someone on the basis of their political or philosophical views, unless those views are "not worthy of respect in a democratic society" and the courts have viewed that as a very high bar.
Also not sure this is necessarily going against the "general view in the country" when an MP and former minister of the constituency with the largest Jewish population has announced he won't be running for election again due to threats against him and his family and an arson attack on his constituency office.
Quote from: Barrister on February 05, 2024, 12:41:54 PMQuote from: Jacob on February 05, 2024, 12:36:10 PMI think BB was pointing out the weakness of Raz statement, in that it is not really appropriate to lump in the Hamas attack into a genereal "Gaza attacks Israel all the time" category - just like it's not really appropriate to lump the current Israeli campaign in with previous actions.
Both October 7, 2023 - and the Israeli response - are not at all of a kind of the normalized, routine violence of the prior 20 years.
I should say - I used the world "normalized" but more as descriptive, not proscriptive. The world had gotten used to low-level violence between Gaza and Israel - not that we should have normalized and accepted it.
Quote from: Barrister on February 05, 2024, 04:49:42 PMI should say - I used the world "normalized" but more as descriptive, not proscriptive. The world had gotten used to low-level violence between Gaza and Israel - not that we should have normalized and accepted it.
Agree - and that's how I read what you said too.
I again note that the violence is between Hamas and Israel, and not between Gaza and Israel
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 05, 2024, 09:40:22 PMI again note that the violence is between Hamas and Israel, and not between Gaza and Israel
You aren't noting that, you are "falsely stating something."
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 06, 2024, 10:33:40 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 05, 2024, 09:40:22 PMI again note that the violence is between Hamas and Israel, and not between Gaza and Israel
You aren't noting that, you are "falsely stating something."
The right wing pro Israeli no matter what echo chamber here is something of a concern, not that you exist but more that you might reflect what the wider population in the US thinks.
I would say the wider population of the United States doesn't give a fuck about this.
I mean, the premise that two countries are belligerents in war, but one of the countries ought be referred to only by the name of the country (Israel) and the other only by the name of the political faction that runs the country (referring to Gaza as "Hamas") is asinine and stupid.
Yeah I don't remember anyone insisting The Nazi Party vs. the Allied States, heck not even on Iraqi Insurgents vs the US Government.
Or "the Republican party's war against the Ba'athist Party" or "the Republican party's war against the Taliban."
Those were just called the American war against (or "in") Iraq, American war against (or "in") Afghanistan etc.
Everyone understood America was at war with Germany and Japan in WWII, not the Nazi Party or the faction of ultranationalist Japanese militarists.
If you really want to call one of the belligerents "Hamas" you will have to call the other belligerent "Netanyahu's coalition."
Even the BBC call it the Israel-Gaza war on their news website. So I have no problem with people using that here.
Quote from: DGuller on February 04, 2024, 09:02:36 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 04, 2024, 07:29:36 PMPdox Israel-Palestine thread is closed. Fucking Communist Chilean guy kept going on about dead kids and that broke the rules apparently.
Never got the logic of closing the thread because of one poster's behavior. You're basically giving the least behaved members of your forum a veto over what gets discussed.
Surprised it lasted this long though to be honest. Pdox is always shutting down OT threads...or worse kicking people out. :hmm:
Quote from: PJL on February 06, 2024, 02:37:22 PMEven the BBC call it the Israel-Gaza war on their news website. So I have no problem with people using that here.
Yes, the latest war has legitimized Hamas's rule of Gaza in the eyes of a lot of journalists. If Hamas = Gaza, journalists are spared a lot of moral issues that they could not deal with without real effort.
Quote from: Valmy on February 06, 2024, 01:39:40 PMI would say the wider population of the United States doesn't give a fuck about this.
That is reassuring, I guess.
Quote from: grumbler on February 06, 2024, 02:53:02 PMQuote from: PJL on February 06, 2024, 02:37:22 PMEven the BBC call it the Israel-Gaza war on their news website. So I have no problem with people using that here.
Yes, the latest war has legitimized Hamas's rule of Gaza in the eyes of a lot of journalists. If Hamas = Gaza, journalists are spared a lot of moral issues that they could not deal with without real effort.
Legitimate or not, they are the rulers of Gaza. Like it becomes stupidly cumbersome to litigate legitimacy when reporting on belligerents in a war. If China invades Taiwan tomorrow are journalists expected to say "China is subjugating its illegal breakaway province", after all, under international law, there is no country called Taiwan. U.S. policy accepts One China.
One can speak of a country without having to delve into those issues, particularly when the issue being reported on is a war, and you aren't talking about the nature of the political system / political leadership.
I find the idea that it is somehow strange for a government to represent its country when it performs actions weird. Russia attacked Ukraine, and is at war with Ukraine. Both of those would still be true even if Putin's regime were to fall. Just like Russia was still at war with Germany after the Czarist regime fell, or Germany was at war with France even after the Kaiser fell. Gaza attacked Israel on Oct 7. Why would this be controversial (rhetorical)?
You have to have a pretty fucked up view of things to entertain the idea that this fact makes civilians somehow enjoy fewer rights. I think Russia is a shit country and Russians in general very assholish, but Russian civilians still have the same rights as other civilians. So do civilians in Gaza. How responsible they may or may not be, or if they support the actions of their government or not, doesn't matter. As civilians they enjoy the rights of civilians.
When bin Laden's cohorts attacked America, it didn't create a state of war between Saudi Arabia and the United States. It didn't even create one between the US and Afghanistan although a de facto one eventually developed out of the incident. The raid on Entebbe didn't create a state of war between Israel and Uganda. Neither NATO nor its constituent nations went to war with Serbia in 90s despite a fair amount of explosions and dying. These are a few examples; it's easy to come up with many more. Not every armed conflict is a good fit for the standard model of state warfare.
The Russia-Ukraine war fits neatly into state vs state war between two sovereigns but not every armed conflict does and the current ME mess is one that does not. Hamas is not a de jure government and Gaza is not a de jure state, and the "de factos on the ground" are muddled. The involvement of disparate militias and resistance groups - from Hezbollah to the Houthis to the [insert Iranian sponsored milita of the week here] - none of which constitute recognized governments of recognized states, doesn't help clarify matters.
As for the civilians in Gaza, they are civilians regardless of how you categorize the conflict. As a signatory to some international agreements on the treatment of civilians in war, in accordance with Israeli law, and in accordance with the IDF's own manuals, Israel and its forces have obligations to them, regardless of whether they are fighting an interstate war, a police action, or a Zippitydoodah. That Hamas is on the other side is relevant for that analysis only because Hamas' practices of deliberately blurring civilian-militant distinctions, perfidy, and using civilian property and infrastructure for military purposes complicates Israel's ability to conduct operations while minimizing civilian casualties. But the rules are still the rules.
The implication a lot of low-IQ lefties make is if you couch it as "Israel vs Gaza" it "justified" killing the civilians of Gaza. That is abjectly stupid--the well established norms and laws around warfare make it clear: no intentional targeting of noncombatants, and if you expect that your targeted actions will incidentally harm them, you have to have some justifiable military reason for it. The U.S. literally had "ratios" of acceptable civilian casualties for different scenarios, for example if an airstrike was believed to be likely to kill Saddam Hussein, it was justified under their rubric to also kill up to 30 noncombatants incidental to that, there were different acceptable ratios for other targets.
My point in saying Israel vs. Gaza, is unlike al-Qaeda, which was nowhere even in the same galaxy as "the government of KSA", Gaza has a government. Hamas has ran the strip since 2008, and not from caves and tunnels. They have ministries. They have civilian police. They have road crews. They have utility workers. They have courts. They have political and military leaders.
No, they aren't recognized as a formal nationstate, but they meet the normal definitions of a country's leadership, little different than say, Taiwan.
Militia groups that operate in Gaza have had to accept Hamas sovereignty or they have been stamped out--there were traditional "tribal" militant groups in Gaza for example that had been around since before Hamas took over that were largely disarmed because they didn't play ball.
Gaza is a small country that is ran by Hamas. It really isn't that complicated, and it is a reasonable way to discuss the conflict.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 06, 2024, 04:36:53 PMWhen bin Laden's cohorts attacked America, it didn't create a state of war between Saudi Arabia and the United States. It didn't even create one between the US and Afghanistan although a de facto one eventually developed out of the incident.
Bin Laden in 2001 having similar levels of de facto governmental powers over either Saud Arabia or Afghanistan as Hamas do over Gaza is an interesting take.
Gaza and Israel are fine things to say. Hamas does have pretty firm rule over gaza.
It's when people say Palestine and Israel over the current fighting that people are clearly talking nonsense.
Quote from: Josquius on February 06, 2024, 05:25:34 PMGaza and Israel are fine things to say. Hamas does have pretty firm rule over gaza.
It's when people say Palestine and Israel over the current fighting that people are clearly talking nonsense.
Fair although I haven't seen it referenced as Palestine vs Israel anywhere.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 06, 2024, 04:36:53 PMWhen bin Laden's cohorts attacked America, it didn't create a state of war between Saudi Arabia and the United States. It didn't even create one between the US and Afghanistan although a de facto one eventually developed out of the incident. The raid on Entebbe didn't create a state of war between Israel and Uganda. Neither NATO nor its constituent nations went to war with Serbia in 90s despite a fair amount of explosions and dying. These are a few examples; it's easy to come up with many more. Not every armed conflict is a good fit for the standard model of state warfare.
The Russia-Ukraine war fits neatly into state vs state war between two sovereigns but not every armed conflict does and the current ME mess is one that does not. Hamas is not a de jure government and Gaza is not a de jure state, and the "de factos on the ground" are muddled. The involvement of disparate militias and resistance groups - from Hezbollah to the Houthis to the [insert Iranian sponsored milita of the week here] - none of which constitute recognized governments of recognized states, doesn't help clarify matters.
As for the civilians in Gaza, they are civilians regardless of how you categorize the conflict. As a signatory to some international agreements on the treatment of civilians in war, in accordance with Israeli law, and in accordance with the IDF's own manuals, Israel and its forces have obligations to them, regardless of whether they are fighting an interstate war, a police action, or a Zippitydoodah. That Hamas is on the other side is relevant for that analysis only because Hamas' practices of deliberately blurring civilian-militant distinctions, perfidy, and using civilian property and infrastructure for military purposes complicates Israel's ability to conduct operations while minimizing civilian casualties. But the rules are still the rules.
I would very much like to steal this for other purposes. But I may edit out reference to the Zippitydoodah form of war.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 06, 2024, 05:06:27 PMThe implication a lot of low-IQ lefties
You are a Trump speech writer aren't you. Come on don't be modest. You can tell us.
Quote from: Josquius on February 06, 2024, 05:25:34 PMGaza and Israel are fine things to say. Hamas does have pretty firm rule over gaza.
It's when people say Palestine and Israel over the current fighting that people are clearly talking nonsense.
I agree. I also think it's nonsense when they refer to it as the Israeli-Bhutan war.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 06, 2024, 06:39:48 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 06, 2024, 05:06:27 PMThe implication a lot of low-IQ lefties
You are a Trump speech writer aren't you. Come on don't be modest. You can tell us.
The low-IQ righties have a hard time remembering the five-letter-word "Hamas" so use the four-letter-word "Gaza." The fact that it is inaccurate doesn't matter to them because "inaccurate" is too big a word for them to comprehend.
Calling it a war against Hamas is not actually as accurate.
Quote from: Tamas on February 06, 2024, 05:28:38 PMQuote from: Josquius on February 06, 2024, 05:25:34 PMGaza and Israel are fine things to say. Hamas does have pretty firm rule over gaza.
It's when people say Palestine and Israel over the current fighting that people are clearly talking nonsense.
Fair although I haven't seen it referenced as Palestine vs Israel anywhere.
Weren't there some in this thread?
I've certainly seen it about.
If we are concerned about strict accuracy, then Israel clearly is not at war with Gaza, because Gaza does not exist as a political entity. It is part of Israeli occupied territory and subject to Israeli jurisdiction. That Israel for some years has chosen not to exercise certain aspects of that jurisdiction over local matters doesn't change that. And to the extent Israel agreed to relinquish such jurisdiction, it did so in favor of the internationally recognized Palestinian National Authority, not Hamas.
Not every conflict fits into clear and precise legal categories. Real life is more complicated than the idealized models of state sovereignty and international conflict.
Quote from: grumbler on February 06, 2024, 08:18:48 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 06, 2024, 06:39:48 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 06, 2024, 05:06:27 PMThe implication a lot of low-IQ lefties
You are a Trump speech writer aren't you. Come on don't be modest. You can tell us.
The low-IQ righties have a hard time remembering the five-letter-word "Hamas" so use the four-letter-word "Gaza." The fact that it is inaccurate doesn't matter to them because "inaccurate" is too big a word for them to comprehend.
They also seem to have a memory defect of some sort. They can't recall events from October 8, 2023 when Israel declared war on Hamas.
The alternative is they do remember
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 07, 2024, 09:17:49 AMIf we are concerned about strict accuracy, then Israel clearly is not at war with Gaza, because Gaza does not exist as a political entity. It is part of Israeli occupied territory and subject to Israeli jurisdiction. That Israel for some years has chosen not to exercise certain aspects of that jurisdiction over local matters doesn't change that. And to the extent Israel agreed to relinquish such jurisdiction, it did so in favor of the internationally recognized Palestinian National Authority, not Hamas.
Not every conflict fits into clear and precise legal categories. Real life is more complicated than the idealized models of state sovereignty and international conflict.
Also if accuracy is important, Israel declared war against Hamas, not Gaza.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 07, 2024, 09:17:49 AMIf we are concerned about strict accuracy, then Israel clearly is not at war with Gaza, because Gaza does not exist as a political entity. It is part of Israeli occupied territory and subject to Israeli jurisdiction. That Israel for some years has chosen not to exercise certain aspects of that jurisdiction over local matters doesn't change that. And to the extent Israel agreed to relinquish such jurisdiction, it did so in favor of the internationally recognized Palestinian National Authority, not Hamas.
Not every conflict fits into clear and precise legal categories. Real life is more complicated than the idealized models of state sovereignty and international conflict.
Actually the status of the territory is not even legally established--the UN Partition Plan for Palestine was accepted by Israel, but no Arab countries, and there was a war followed by an armistice. The actual borders have never had a full, international legal resolution. It has been treated as Egyptian at times, later Israeli, but it is has never been formally settled.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 07, 2024, 10:15:43 AMThey also seem to have a memory defect of some sort. They can't recall events from October 8, 2023 when Israel declared war on Hamas.
So you are accepting, then, that Israel has unilateral authority to determine Palestinian statehood? Israel's position is there is no Palestine, I take it you agree with that?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 07, 2024, 10:21:40 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 07, 2024, 10:15:43 AMThey also seem to have a memory defect of some sort. They can't recall events from October 8, 2023 when Israel declared war on Hamas.
So you are accepting, then, that Israel has unilateral authority to determine Palestinian statehood? Israel's position is there is no Palestine, I take it you agree with that?
At some point you should just acknowledge Israel is not at war with Gaza.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 07, 2024, 10:37:50 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 07, 2024, 10:21:40 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 07, 2024, 10:15:43 AMThey also seem to have a memory defect of some sort. They can't recall events from October 8, 2023 when Israel declared war on Hamas.
So you are accepting, then, that Israel has unilateral authority to determine Palestinian statehood? Israel's position is there is no Palestine, I take it you agree with that?
At some point you should just acknowledge Israel is not at war with Gaza.
There is nothing to acknowledge, referring to it as a war on Gaza is common--several mainstream news outlets have used the phrase. You're the one who had an emotional fit about it. There is no objective "truth" here, it is fine to call it any number of things. Most wars have multiple names. "Persian Gulf War", "Desert Storm" etc.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 07, 2024, 10:20:35 AMActually the status of the territory is not even legally established--the UN Partition Plan for Palestine was accepted by Israel, but no Arab countries, and there was a war followed by an armistice. The actual borders have never had a full, international legal resolution. It has been treated as Egyptian at times, later Israeli, but it is has never been formally settled.
I don't dispute this but it only reinforces the point.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 07, 2024, 10:46:19 AMThere is nothing to acknowledge, referring to it as a war on Gaza is common--several mainstream news outlets have used the phrase.
People can use whatever phrasing they want but what matters is the reality and not the terms used to describe it. The Israelis want to talk about war on Hamas because they want to emphasize that they are not against the civilian population of Gaza. That's fine but that rhetorical effort only goes so far when there is a perception that Israel was not discriminating in dropping ordinance on Gazan apartment blocks early in the war. If Israel wants to be perceived as not being against the Gazans, it should act like it cares for their welfare.
For the Gazans and some of their boosters, talking about a war on or against Gaza feeds their desired narrative of Israel making war on a people. But inherent in that description is identification with Hamas as the de facto government of the territory and the unquestioned leaders of that "side" in the war. And so making the rhetorical point against Israel risks a loss of sympathy from the sane and rational people of this planet who abhor Hamas.
Personally I would say it's a war *in* Gaza, seems the most descriptively accurate to me. But it's a free country, call it what you want.
Exactly so. It is a war in Gaza. And people who want to use rhetoric to suggest it is a war against Gaza or with Gaza miss the most important point that this is a conflict involving a terrorist organization.
The implications of the different terms seem pretty clear to me.
"Israel-Gaza War" frames the conflict as one between states. Gazan civilian casualties, while regrettable, are a natural consequence of being citizens of a state that is party to the conflict. Additionally, it implies that an Israeli strategy of attacking until "the Gazan government" surrenders is reasonably logical - Israel's adversary is a state actor and can be fought as such.
"Israel-Hamas War" frames the conflict as one between a state and a non-state actor - a terrorist organization. To me it implies that Gazans who are not members of Hamas are innocent victims to a greater degree than if they're citizens of a state party to a war. On a strategy level it seems to make finding a convincing Israeli theory of victory harder, as non-state opponents historically are more challenging to defeat.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 07, 2024, 12:43:19 PMPeople can use whatever phrasing they want but what matters is the reality and not the terms used to describe it. The Israelis want to talk about war on Hamas because they want to emphasize that they are not against the civilian population of Gaza. That's fine but that rhetorical effort only goes so far when there is a perception that Israel was not discriminating in dropping ordinance on Gazan apartment blocks early in the war. If Israel wants to be perceived as not being against the Gazans, it should act like it cares for their welfare.
For the Gazans and some of their boosters, talking about a war on or against Gaza feeds their desired narrative of Israel making war on a people. But inherent in that description is identification with Hamas as the de facto government of the territory and the unquestioned leaders of that "side" in the war. And so making the rhetorical point against Israel risks a loss of sympathy from the sane and rational people of this planet who abhor Hamas.
Personally I would say it's a war *in* Gaza, seems the most descriptively accurate to me. But it's a free country, call it what you want.
I think there's also a strand where "Israel-Gaza war" justifies greater destruction in Gaza, which is convenient for those who hope to displace the Gazan population even if they can't quite own that desire in public due to political concerns. But taking territory from a defeated state is relatively common.
Quote from: Jacob on February 07, 2024, 12:58:38 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on February 07, 2024, 12:43:19 PMPeople can use whatever phrasing they want but what matters is the reality and not the terms used to describe it. The Israelis want to talk about war on Hamas because they want to emphasize that they are not against the civilian population of Gaza. That's fine but that rhetorical effort only goes so far when there is a perception that Israel was not discriminating in dropping ordinance on Gazan apartment blocks early in the war. If Israel wants to be perceived as not being against the Gazans, it should act like it cares for their welfare.
For the Gazans and some of their boosters, talking about a war on or against Gaza feeds their desired narrative of Israel making war on a people. But inherent in that description is identification with Hamas as the de facto government of the territory and the unquestioned leaders of that "side" in the war. And so making the rhetorical point against Israel risks a loss of sympathy from the sane and rational people of this planet who abhor Hamas.
Personally I would say it's a war *in* Gaza, seems the most descriptively accurate to me. But it's a free country, call it what you want.
I think there's also a strand where "Israel-Gaza war" justifies greater destruction in Gaza, which is convenient for those who hope to displace the Gazan population even if they can't quite own that desire in public due to political concerns. But taking territory from a defeated state is relatively common.
I think that is part of what JR is saying, if I am reading him correctly. Those who want to make the strongest argument that Israel is not engaging in collective punishment contrary to international law will characterize this as a war between nation states, even though Gaza is neither a nation nor a state.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 07, 2024, 02:58:35 PMQuote from: Jacob on February 07, 2024, 12:58:38 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on February 07, 2024, 12:43:19 PMPeople can use whatever phrasing they want but what matters is the reality and not the terms used to describe it. The Israelis want to talk about war on Hamas because they want to emphasize that they are not against the civilian population of Gaza. That's fine but that rhetorical effort only goes so far when there is a perception that Israel was not discriminating in dropping ordinance on Gazan apartment blocks early in the war. If Israel wants to be perceived as not being against the Gazans, it should act like it cares for their welfare.
For the Gazans and some of their boosters, talking about a war on or against Gaza feeds their desired narrative of Israel making war on a people. But inherent in that description is identification with Hamas as the de facto government of the territory and the unquestioned leaders of that "side" in the war. And so making the rhetorical point against Israel risks a loss of sympathy from the sane and rational people of this planet who abhor Hamas.
Personally I would say it's a war *in* Gaza, seems the most descriptively accurate to me. But it's a free country, call it what you want.
I think there's also a strand where "Israel-Gaza war" justifies greater destruction in Gaza, which is convenient for those who hope to displace the Gazan population even if they can't quite own that desire in public due to political concerns. But taking territory from a defeated state is relatively common.
I think that is part of what JR is saying, if I am reading him correctly. Those who want to make the strongest argument that Israel is not engaging in collective punishment contrary to international law will characterize this as a war mabetween nation states, even though Gaza is neither a nation nor a state.
Surely this would then make Israel - Gaza war the acceptable term?
Israel is at war with a small semi self governing ghetto and is going about it like it is engaged in a war with another state.
This doesn't put Israel in a great light.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 07, 2024, 12:43:19 PMPeople can use whatever phrasing they want but what matters is the reality and not the terms used to describe it. The Israelis want to talk about war on Hamas because they want to emphasize that they are not against the civilian population of Gaza. That's fine but that rhetorical effort only goes so far when there is a perception that Israel was not discriminating in dropping ordinance on Gazan apartment blocks early in the war. If Israel wants to be perceived as not being against the Gazans, it should act like it cares for their welfare.
My core point:
1. cc is a trolling idiot
2. Referring to it as a war on Gaza doesn't implicitly mean anything, it has no greater meaning, it isn't a positive or negative attempt at doing anything
Ah the last refuge of the weaker argument.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 07, 2024, 03:27:10 PMAh the last refuge of the weaker argument.
Yeah because this thread has been civil until now, and hasn't been exemplified by your bad behavior for months.
Quote from: Jacob on February 07, 2024, 12:58:38 PMI think there's also a strand where "Israel-Gaza war" justifies greater destruction in Gaza, which is convenient for those who hope to displace the Gazan population even if they can't quite own that desire in public due to political concerns. But taking territory from a defeated state is relatively common.
Yes that is another way to frame the issues rhetorically.
But incoherent in this context. Israel doesn't need to frame the conflict as an inter-state war to take territory; it already has jurisdiction over the territory and has since '67. No one who actually cares or whose mind hasn't already long been made up is going to think that this war gives any greater legitimacy or staying power to the Israeli occupation of territories occupied in the 67 war.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 07, 2024, 04:08:55 PMQuote from: Jacob on February 07, 2024, 12:58:38 PMI think there's also a strand where "Israel-Gaza war" justifies greater destruction in Gaza, which is convenient for those who hope to displace the Gazan population even if they can't quite own that desire in public due to political concerns. But taking territory from a defeated state is relatively common.
Yes that is another way to frame the issues rhetorically.
But incoherent in this context. Israel doesn't need to frame the conflict as an inter-state war to take territory; it already has jurisdiction over the territory and has since '67. No one who actually cares or whose mind hasn't already long been made up is going to think that this war gives any greater legitimacy or staying power to the Israeli occupation of territories occupied in the 67 war.
Surely that's exactly why they want to frame it as between states?
Bombing civilians you already have control over vs. Necessarily bombing enemy cities as part of an inter state war.
Quote from: Josquius on February 07, 2024, 04:15:40 PMSurely that's exactly why they want to frame it as between states?
Bombing civilians you already have control over vs. Necessarily bombing enemy cities as part of an inter state war.
It's all semantics.
Was Russia held to a higher standard of humanitarian conduct when it pummeled the Chechens then it is now in Ukraine? I don't think so.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 07, 2024, 10:21:40 AMIsrael's position is there is no Palestine, I take it you agree with that?
That is not "Israel's position!" :lmfao: That's like saying "Israel's position is that there is no Sinai." Israel's position is that there is no nation-state called Palestine, that's all.
Quote from: grumbler on February 07, 2024, 06:17:35 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 07, 2024, 10:21:40 AMIsrael's position is there is no Palestine, I take it you agree with that?
That is not "Israel's position!" :lmfao: That's like saying "Israel's position is that there is no Sinai." Israel's position is that there is no nation-state called Palestine, that's all.
This is a good example of a post better left untyped. It was abundantly obvious no one was talking about the general geographic/historical region.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 07, 2024, 06:25:56 PMQuote from: grumbler on February 07, 2024, 06:17:35 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 07, 2024, 10:21:40 AMIsrael's position is there is no Palestine, I take it you agree with that?
That is not "Israel's position!" :lmfao: That's like saying "Israel's position is that there is no Sinai." Israel's position is that there is no nation-state called Palestine, that's all.
This is a good example of a post better left untyped. It was abundantly obvious no one was talking about the general geographic/historical region.
It is abundantly clear that you are either bad at writing down your thoughts or bad at thinking them, if the best you can do when they are refuted is say that you didn't mean what you wrote.
Sometimes reading your posts makes me wish I still drank.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 07, 2024, 07:02:21 PMSometimes reading your posts makes me wish I still drank.
Reading your posts, sometimes I also wish you still drank.
Just take the L and drop it. First Law of Holes and whatnot.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 07, 2024, 04:08:55 PMQuote from: Jacob on February 07, 2024, 12:58:38 PMI think there's also a strand where "Israel-Gaza war" justifies greater destruction in Gaza, which is convenient for those who hope to displace the Gazan population even if they can't quite own that desire in public due to political concerns. But taking territory from a defeated state is relatively common.
Yes that is another way to frame the issues rhetorically.
But incoherent in this context. Israel doesn't need to frame the conflict as an inter-state war to take territory; it already has jurisdiction over the territory and has since '67. No one who actually cares or whose mind hasn't already long been made up is going to think that this war gives any greater legitimacy or staying power to the Israeli occupation of territories occupied in the 67 war.
Why do you think Israel continues to deny that its intention then is to reoccupy? At least publicly. There are slip ups from time to time where cabinet ministers, latter labeled as not speaking for the government, say that that is exactly the intention.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 07, 2024, 03:55:54 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 07, 2024, 03:27:10 PMAh the last refuge of the weaker argument.
Yeah because this thread has been civil until now, and hasn't been exemplified by your bad behavior for months.
You may want to reflect on the fact that you were the one who first accused the people who don't agree with you as being low IQ.
You might also want to reflect on how you reacted to Grumbler's effective parody of your post. That's right, you made yet another personal attack.
It sure looks like you have one go to move for dealing with people who fundamentally disagree with you. And it is not to act in a civil way.
Now I understand why P'dox shut down their Israel-Hamas/Gaza thread :lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2024, 08:30:00 AMWhy do you think Israel continues to deny that its intention then is to reoccupy? At least publicly. There are slip ups from time to time where cabinet ministers, latter labeled as not speaking for the government, say that that is exactly the intention.
The simple answer is because Netanayhu's coalition has no consensus, and Netanyahu going too far into specifics will exacerbate those tensions. I don't just mean his war cabinet, his base coalition that brought him to power does not have consensus. The real hardliners are talking about reducing Gaza's population to a few hundred thousand and sending everyone else to Egypt and Jordan.
A reimposition of the Israeli military governorate (from pre-1994) would be seen as a disaster by probably his entire coalition, and accepting any form of Palestinian rule would be entirely unacceptable to the hardliners.
He has no real option to get very specific without pushing tensions. Netanyahu's only realistic move is likely to hold elections at some point in 2024 to try and get a stronger position in the Knesset which will give him more political room to work--of course polling suggests he may get drubbed if he does that. He also has to worry about his personal criminal cases more if he loses an election.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2024, 08:35:25 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 07, 2024, 03:55:54 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 07, 2024, 03:27:10 PMAh the last refuge of the weaker argument.
Yeah because this thread has been civil until now, and hasn't been exemplified by your bad behavior for months.
You may want to reflect on the fact that you were the one who first accused the people who don't agree with you as being low IQ.
You might also want to reflect on how you reacted to Grumbler's effective parody of your post. That's right, you made yet another personal attack.
It sure looks like you have one go to move for dealing with people who fundamentally disagree with you. And it is not to act in a civil way.
I haven't seen you maintain a civil tongue in basically any thread
in years, keep your lectures to yourself.
Netanyahu is in a unique position at this point. Most politicians like to get out of the quagmire that large scale military interventions bring but Netanyahu is actively wanting to prolong it in Gaza in order to defer any difficult political decisions.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 08, 2024, 10:25:50 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2024, 08:35:25 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 07, 2024, 03:55:54 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 07, 2024, 03:27:10 PMAh the last refuge of the weaker argument.
Yeah because this thread has been civil until now, and hasn't been exemplified by your bad behavior for months.
You may want to reflect on the fact that you were the one who first accused the people who don't agree with you as being low IQ.
You might also want to reflect on how you reacted to Grumbler's effective parody of your post. That's right, you made yet another personal attack.
It sure looks like you have one go to move for dealing with people who fundamentally disagree with you. And it is not to act in a civil way.
I haven't seen you maintain a civil tongue in basically any thread in years, keep your lectures to yourself.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 08, 2024, 10:25:50 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2024, 08:35:25 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 07, 2024, 03:55:54 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 07, 2024, 03:27:10 PMAh the last refuge of the weaker argument.
Yeah because this thread has been civil until now, and hasn't been exemplified by your bad behavior for months.
You may want to reflect on the fact that you were the one who first accused the people who don't agree with you as being low IQ.
You might also want to reflect on how you reacted to Grumbler's effective parody of your post. That's right, you made yet another personal attack.
It sure looks like you have one go to move for dealing with people who fundamentally disagree with you. And it is not to act in a civil way.
I haven't seen you maintain a civil tongue in basically any thread in years, keep your lectures to yourself.
I suppose we could speculate as to why you suffered from that inability, but no good would be accomplished.
Quote from: PJL on February 08, 2024, 11:42:11 AMNetanyahu is in a unique position at this point. Most politicians like to get out of the quagmire that large scale military interventions bring but Netanyahu is actively wanting to prolong it in Gaza in order to defer any difficult political decisions.
Yeah, in is an interesting bind, Hamas presented a no win situation to even the best of Israeli leaders. There was no good military option, including doing nothing. But Netanyahu is far from the best of Israeli leaders and Hamas is getting a big PR win.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2024, 03:10:53 PMYeah, in is an interesting bind, Hamas presented a no win situation to even the best of Israeli leaders. There was no good military option, including doing nothing. But Netanyahu is far from the best of Israeli leaders and Hamas is getting a big PR win.
It is really hard to make yourself look like the nastier alternative to Hamas, but Netanyahu was not deterred and accomplished that for Israel.
Side news but I found it interesting..
Ireland vs Israel in women's basketball. Ireland want to boycott but can't. Israel goes off it calling them anti semitic :bleeding:
https://www.bbc.com/sport/basketball/68243979.amp
Irelands protest would have meant more if they won. Can't go in riding your high horse and lose. Looks bad.
It seems kind of ridiculous to refuse to shake hands with random jocks because of shit their government does. There are probably ways to condemn Israel's actions without making it a personal beef with every single Israeli. That is where it seems antisemitic. If they were playing a team of Palestinian jocks I assume they wouldn't just assume every single player was a Hamas supporter.
But yes the fact they also went out and lost by 30 is kind of embarrassing.
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2024, 08:46:14 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2024, 03:10:53 PMYeah, in is an interesting bind, Hamas presented a no win situation to even the best of Israeli leaders. There was no good military option, including doing nothing. But Netanyahu is far from the best of Israeli leaders and Hamas is getting a big PR win.
It is really hard to make yourself look like the nastier alternative to Hamas, but Netanyahu was not deterred and accomplished that for Israel.
I think that is a very good summary
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 09, 2024, 12:22:45 PMI think that is a very good summary
Yeah. Fuck that guy.
The bullshit and frustrating part of all this is is that he just barely won the last election by a hair. Just fucking fate putting him in charge in this critical moment. If God exists he hates Israel and Palestine.
Though, yes, obviously the Israeli voters had something to do with it as well. It just seemed hopeful just a short time ago that the political forces had finally turned against the Israeli right wing for a bit.
I find it confusing a lot of people seem to (with little actual thought) say Hamas isn't losing.
A simple review of the factual situation on the ground would show:
- Hamas has lost 20,000 of its prewar soldier count of 30,000
- Hamas has suffered the destruction of 17 of their 24 combat battalions
- 95% reduction in rocket capability
- With the fall of Khan Younis, Rafah is their last significant stronghold
- Their military leader Yahya Sinwar has been out of contact with the rest of Hamas for "weeks", meaning what who knows, but certainly nothing good for Hamas
- Hamas has essentially no prospect of resuming security control of Gaza, it will all but certainly be subject to long term IDF patrols, probably military bases etc
- Hamas has very little prospect for resuming administrative control of Gaza, with most of the organs of that control destroyed
- Hamas enjoyed a monopoly on force previously, the only non-Hamas armed groups allowed to operate in Gaza were willing to operate in fealty to Hamas. Now there are old Gazan familial clan groups arming up, criminal gangs taking over swathes of territory etc.
If one was to say Israel is just moving from one bad mess (Hamas controlling Gaza) to a different one (Gaza being an anarchic shit hole that Israel will largely be responsible for), yes--that is correct. But Hamas has quite literally had a new asshole torn into it, and has suffered such damage it really isn't likely they ever recover to what they were.
Hamas doesn't have options like ISIS or the Taliban to slink off into some remote area and rebuild, Gaza was the only territory they had. The umbrella group itself can continue to exist but not as an administrator of the Gaza Strip, which the source of most of its money and almost all of its relevance and power.
That's a good analysis. If you think they are just a government. If you think they are a terrorist organization with very little if no concern about the inhabitants of Gazza, then your analysis is badly mistaken.
They can be both simultaneously.
Hamas obviously isn't losing.
Again look at things logically. Do you seriously think that they thought with their hostage taking murder raid they thought they would somehow conquer Israel?
The entire intent of the attack was always about trolling Israel into an over reaction and gaining the sympathy of the world, especially the Muslim world.
All this talk of Israel stronk.
Gaza crushed!
With Most of the world. Even the US president, telling Israel to chill out a bit.
... It certainly does look like mission accomplished for Hamas.
In the bigger picture the one thing Hamas really didn't want to see was a peaceful solution to the Palestine-Israel mess, which things were increasingly inching towards. They had to make sure any ultimate solution was on their terms.
Current polls certainly do suggest their popularity has gone up quite some. These aren't the most reliable of polls and of course will be showing a boost out of the situation. But still seem to suggest the situation has been a win for Hamas.
I would think any realistic planning of the attack would at best hope for a few military hostages, since IDF apparently put unarmed video surveillance personel very close to the border, and some civilians killed and captured perhaps. Perhaps with luck they could cause a panic at the festival and get some videos of panicked youngsters fleeing. That kind of attack would humiliate Israel and get Hamas huge concessions for their hostages.
The hugely successful murder-rape-fest was probably, from what I would guess, a very surprising turn of events and from there everything spiralled.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 09, 2024, 08:56:00 PMThat's a good analysis. If you think they are just a government. If you think they are a terrorist organization with very little if no concern about the inhabitants of Gazza, then your analysis is badly mistaken.
If you think the latter then you really haven't followed Hamas, their political leadership, the sort of diplomacy they ran through Qatar before the war and etc.
It certainly isn't unlikely as the group loses Gaza they become an underground terror group, but those are far less dangerous and less able to generate money or curry diplomatic attention. Underground groups also can't field 2 dozen organized regular military battalions like prewar Hamas. They won't be able to maintain hundreds of rocket manufacturing/ storage sites etc.
Israel's war goal is to end Hamas administration of the strip. There appears to be little chance that fails at this point.
Quote from: Josquius on February 10, 2024, 02:40:36 AMHamas obviously isn't losing.
Again look at things logically. Do you seriously think that they thought with their hostage taking murder raid they thought they would somehow conquer Israel?
The entire intent of the attack was always about trolling Israel into an over reaction and gaining the sympathy of the world, especially the Muslim world.
All this talk of Israel stronk.
Gaza crushed!
With Most of the world. Even the US president, telling Israel to chill out a bit.
... It certainly does look like mission accomplished for Hamas.
In the bigger picture the one thing Hamas really didn't want to see was a peaceful solution to the Palestine-Israel mess, which things were increasingly inching towards. They had to make sure any ultimate solution was on their terms.
Current polls certainly do suggest their popularity has gone up quite some. These aren't the most reliable of polls and of course will be showing a boost out of the situation. But still seem to suggest the situation has been a win for Hamas.
This still? Guys, Hamas has been running Gaza for 15 years. They absolutely did not plan to trade losing Gaza to "hurt Israel's regional PR." You guys are stuck incorrectly thinking Hamas is primarily an Islamic terror group whose only goal is to hide and do low tier terror attacks.
If that is the case why has some of their political leadership been working for years to try and cut a deal with Fatah to legitimize their rule of the strip?
Why did they train, build and maintain 24 regular military combat battalions? Why did they operate a domestic police force?
Why did a significant segment of their leadership want to be part of a two state solution?
You really just aren't talking about Hamas. You're confusing them for al Qaeda.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 10, 2024, 09:57:55 AMQuote from: Josquius on February 10, 2024, 02:40:36 AMHamas obviously isn't losing.
Again look at things logically. Do you seriously think that they thought with their hostage taking murder raid they thought they would somehow conquer Israel?
The entire intent of the attack was always about trolling Israel into an over reaction and gaining the sympathy of the world, especially the Muslim world.
All this talk of Israel stronk.
Gaza crushed!
With Most of the world. Even the US president, telling Israel to chill out a bit.
... It certainly does look like mission accomplished for Hamas.
In the bigger picture the one thing Hamas really didn't want to see was a peaceful solution to the Palestine-Israel mess, which things were increasingly inching towards. They had to make sure any ultimate solution was on their terms.
Current polls certainly do suggest their popularity has gone up quite some. These aren't the most reliable of polls and of course will be showing a boost out of the situation. But still seem to suggest the situation has been a win for Hamas.
This still? Guys, Hamas has been running Gaza for 15 years. They absolutely did not plan to trade losing Gaza to "hurt Israel's regional PR." You guys are stuck incorrectly thinking Hamas is primarily an Islamic terror group whose only goal is to hide and do low tier terror attacks.
If that is the case why has some of their political leadership been working for years to try and cut a deal with Fatah to legitimize their rule of the strip?
Why did they train, build and maintain 24 regular military combat battalions? Why did they operate a domestic police force?
Why did a significant segment of their leadership want to be part of a two state solution?
You really just aren't talking about Hamas. You're confusing them for al Qaeda.
They aren't interested in ruling an Israeli ghetto forever.
They want the West Bank too and beyond that the whole of Palestine.
Note your statements here say some of their leadership. Not their overall policy. It's not abnormal for there to be those who think different to the company line.
Hurting "Israels PR" absolutely is their core aim. If not that what do you think they want to accomplish from attacking Israel?
Do you think they actually believed they could win a stand up fight?
Why do they have an army then? - again PR. Albeit internal.
Quote from: Threviel on February 10, 2024, 01:21:31 AMThey can be both simultaneously.
Just so. The entire right bloc grand strategy is in tatters, with the security policy exposed as a sham and the diplomatic efforts in limbo. There is a way forward but only by moving towards recognition of Palestinian statehood as part of a regional and international process, which is anathema to the govenernment.
The degrading of Hamas offensive capacity, while a positive result, is ultimately less significant. That can be rebuilt and even if Hamas were to be effectively annihilated as an organization, another similar construct would soon step into its place.
Quote from: Threviel on February 10, 2024, 01:21:31 AMThey can be both simultaneously.
They could, but they are not. The military wing of Hamas has been in control for a while now. If the part of Hamas that was more concerned with governing Gaza had more power, then negotiations and all the other trappings that go along with state to state relationships would be more viable. But that is not the reality on the ground, and part of why Hamas launched their terrorist attacks on Oct. 7.
Quote from: Josquius on February 10, 2024, 10:35:44 AMHurting "Israels PR" absolutely is their core aim. If not that what do you think they want to accomplish from attacking Israel?
Do you think they actually believed they could win a stand up fight?
I think you are falling into a common error of thinking I have seen for years, you assume "super-competency" in the enemies of the west and how they are thinking. It is the same narrative that al-Qaeda "got what it wanted" out of 9/11. Al-Qaeda as it existed before 9/11 largely was destroyed, all of its significant leaders in power before 9/11 died, typically violently. The surviving organization splintered into tons of other groups, most of whom are arguably only speciously affiliated with the original AQ.
There was no great Holy War in the Middle East. The secular rulers of Middle Eastern countries who struck alliances with the United States continue to operate those alliances.
There is a common confusion, I think, in assuming that just because things go poorly for the West, means it is going as intended by the West's enemies. Or that the West's enemies are "winning."
Most would agree the overall Iraq war was a boondoggle for the United States. Only a very stupid person would say Saddam Hussein won that war, or that the U.S. "played into his hands." The dude was living in a spider hole within weeks of the U.S. invasion and was dead (by execution) within a few years--his adult male heirs he had spent a lifetime grooming were killed in battle. There is no narrative where he didn't lose the war. That doesn't mean America won, those are different questions.
Back to Hamas--you are plain wrong if you think Hamas wanted to lose control of the Gaza strip, or that Iran wanted them to lose control of the Gaza strip. The most obvious, and logical conclusions is simple: Hamas miscalculated on a number of fronts. Hamas has bifurcated leadership--a political leadership in exile that has largely been working towards some sort of agreement to be part of a two state solution, and a military leadership within the strip who believe there must be some sort of total war with Israel.
There is simply no chance that
either of those branches wanted to lose control of the strip. The political leadership it is obvious.
I think the thinking of Yahya Sinwar (the head of the military in the strip) was probably one of two possibilities, or possibly both (with one as a "worst case" plan.)
1. Expected that the Israeli response would be similar to prior Israeli responses. A few weeks war, bombings, some military raids. But ultimately, the "CNN effect" would force them to quit, they would have to negotiate, and they would agree to the release of many thousands of Palestinian terrorists to get back a few hundred Israeli hostages. This would bolster both Hamas and Sinwar's positions.
2. Expected that if Israel went further than that, the "Axis of Resistance" would kick in, Hezbollah would start a general war in the North, maybe even more direct activity from the Houthis and Iran. Sinwar almost certainly expected Israel would not have penetrated that far into Gaza at the time. Now, did he think the Axis of Resistance would militarily defeat Israel? I don't know--I doubt it, unless he was really delusional. But he probably expected it would cause such a huge problem for Israel that they would have to desist or at least freeze their operation in Gaza. This would push the immediate conflict into a stalemate, and put Israel on its heels and (he assumed) the bad scenario would bring Israel to the negotiating table to give even greater concession.
While I mostly discount it, there is also a small chance he believed this would kick off some sort of apocalyptic war involving the Arab states as well and the ultimate purging of Israel from the region--but it is typically not the case that Hamas leadership has been that far divorced from reality, but who knows.
I see basically no possibility in which Sinwar thought, or would have found acceptable "well, we are going to lose all our military and our control of Gaza, including most of our top commanders being killed--maybe me myself, and the gain is that Israel will release a few hundred Palestinian terrorists, and will get a stern warning to behave from the ICJ, and some negative comments from the global left." Yeah, I think it is basically 0% chance the dude willingly threw away the lives of 30,000 of his men for such small gains, and I think it is supremely illogical, and delusional, that you think otherwise.
At this point Hamas would frankly have to fight a civil war to even re-assert itself in Gaza even if Israel fully withdrew today and agreed to not enter the strip again. I suspect you haven't been reading the reporting, but in the areas that have already been subjected to IDF "clearing operations", other non-Hamas armed groups have materialized. Former Hamas police men and other tribal groups have started arming themselves and taking over neighborhoods and forming new groups in the northern half of the strip. There is just no chance whatsoever, for such limited benefit, Yahya Sinwar wanted this outcome.
It is too easy, and maybe too "tempting" for an anti-Israeli as yourself, to believe that the enemies of Israel are hyper competent and perfect.
It is all but certain Israel has a long term mess on its hands in Gaza, and that, too--has nothing to say as to whether or not Hamas is "getting what it wanted", just like Saddam in Iraq--America got a bad outcome in Iraq, that doesn't mean Saddam got a good one or got what he wanted. More than one group can suffer a negative outcome from a war. They aren't binary.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 10, 2024, 11:21:18 AMQuote from: Threviel on February 10, 2024, 01:21:31 AMThey can be both simultaneously.
The degrading of Hamas offensive capacity, while a positive result, is ultimately less significant. That can be rebuilt and even if Hamas were to be effectively annihilated as an organization, another similar construct would soon step into its place.
On what basis do you make such a specious claim? If it was so easy to build up a Hamas-tier military force under Israeli occupation, the various (and there are dozens of them) Palestinian militant groups that operate underground in the West Bank would have done so. Instead, all of them combined don't and have never represented even a sliver of Hamas's pre-war power.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 10, 2024, 01:44:36 PMI think you are falling into a common error of thinking I have seen for years, you assume "super-competency" in the enemies of the west and how they are thinking. It is the same narrative that al-Qaeda "got what it wanted" out of 9/11. Al-Qaeda as it existed before 9/11 largely was destroyed, all of its significant leaders in power before 9/11 died, typically violently. The surviving organization splintered into tons of other groups, most of whom are arguably only speciously affiliated with the original AQ.
I'd say its more many assuming they're super incompetent than anyone assuming they're super competent. The super competent thing to do would have been not to attack in the first place.
Al-Quaida getting what it wanted out of 11/9 is an interesting one. As it sort of did. Massive boost in Islamophobia, America destroying itself in futile adventures in the middle east, and so on.
The outcome of this however was not what they expected. We didn't see a mass uprising of moderate muslims and an epic apocalyptic war of civilizations, the coming of the messiah, and all that stuff.
Its like if libertarians got what they wanted and the government effectively disbanded- they think this will lead to a utopia, most people expect it will instead lead to Somalia.
QuoteBack to Hamas--you are plain wrong if you think Hamas wanted to lose control of the Gaza strip, or that Iran wanted them to lose control of the Gaza strip. The most obvious, and logical conclusions is simple: Hamas miscalculated on a number of fronts. Hamas has bifurcated leadership--a political leadership in exile that has largely been working towards some sort of agreement to be part of a two state solution, and a military leadership within the strip who believe there must be some sort of total war with Israel.
There is simply no chance that either of those branches wanted to lose control of the strip. The political leadership it is obvious.
Of course they don't WANT to lose Gaza.
However it is a sacrifice they're willing to make for control of the greater prize of the West Bank and ultimately they believe the whole of Palestine.
QuoteI think the thinking of Yahya Sinwar (the head of the military in the strip) was probably one of two possibilities, or possibly both (with one as a "worst case" plan.)
1. Expected that the Israeli response would be similar to prior Israeli responses. A few weeks war, bombings, some military raids. But ultimately, the "CNN effect" would force them to quit, they would have to negotiate, and they would agree to the release of many thousands of Palestinian terrorists to get back a few hundred Israeli hostages. This would bolster both Hamas and Sinwar's positions.
2. Expected that if Israel went further than that, the "Axis of Resistance" would kick in, Hezbollah would start a general war in the North, maybe even more direct activity from the Houthis and Iran. Sinwar almost certainly expected Israel would not have penetrated that far into Gaza at the time. Now, did he think the Axis of Resistance would militarily defeat Israel? I don't know--I doubt it, unless he was really delusional. But he probably expected it would cause such a huge problem for Israel that they would have to desist or at least freeze their operation in Gaza. This would push the immediate conflict into a stalemate, and put Israel on its heels and (he assumed) the bad scenario would bring Israel to the negotiating table to give even greater concession.
While I mostly discount it, there is also a small chance he believed this would kick off some sort of apocalyptic war involving the Arab states as well and the ultimate purging of Israel from the region--but it is typically not the case that Hamas leadership has been that far divorced from reality, but who knows.
I do think they expected a lot more Arab support.
This is where the talk of Hamas being shocked at the brutality really comes into play- I don't think the leadership planned for baby murder, rape, and all of those horrors. As no matter what they thought about Israelis and how much they might have been fine with babies being killed, they would know thats terrible PR.
But due to the nature of the attacking force, a bunch of radicalised young men effectively just released from prison, with a completely splintered command structure... things just went way out of their control.
I wouldn't go so far as they realistically thought this was it and the final war against Israel would suddenly come overnight. But stopping the moves towards Arab-Israeli reconciliation was their core aim and one they were willing to burn Gaza for.
QuoteIt is too easy, and maybe too "tempting" for an anti-Israeli as yourself, to believe that the enemies of Israel are hyper competent and perfect.
Not blindly supporting Israel whatever it wants to do != anti-Israeli.
QuoteIt is all but certain Israel has a long term mess on its hands in Gaza, and that, too--has nothing to say as to whether or not Hamas is "getting what it wanted", just like Saddam in Iraq--America got a bad outcome in Iraq, that doesn't mean Saddam got a good one or got what he wanted. More than one group can suffer a negative outcome from a war. They aren't binary.
Saddam didn't get what he wanted out of Iraq at all. But then he didn't want the war and made no attempts to start it.
Islamic Extremists didn't get their entire shopping list but they certainly got a lot.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 10, 2024, 01:44:36 PMOn what basis do you make such a specious claim? If it was so easy to build up a Hamas-tier military force under Israeli occupation, the various (and there are dozens of them) Palestinian militant groups that operate underground in the West Bank would have done so. Instead, all of them combined don't and have never represented even a sliver of Hamas's pre-war power.
On the basis of fact.
When Hamas was still one of the "Palestinian militant groups that operate underground" they managed to cut a bloody swath through Israel with a wave of suicide bombings that killed hundreds and wounded thousands. Rinky dinky terror forces can do extraordinary amounts of damage even without access to sophisticated weaponry. That was part of Israel's strategy of relative benign negelct towards Hamas; the idea was once they were forced to come out of the underground and assume state-like responsibilities, they could be more easily monitored, countered and/or deterred. It worked until it didn't.
Although Hamas did fire rockets on Oct 7, it was purely diversionary. The assault did not involve lots of high tech equipment; mostly guys in regular vehicles with small arms. Many of the participants were not Hamas, but belonged to some of the dozens of militant groups you referred to. Hamas' main contribution was not some elite tier military force but basic coordination and planning. And the real reason the attack succeeded was the shocking negligence of Israeli security forces.
If Hamas is suppressed, it will create a leadership vacuum, and something will step in. Israel can try to keep some kind of proxy in by force, but the second they relax their grip, some other force will occupy that vaccuum. And after what has happened in Gaza, it is unlikely to be appreciably less militant and violent.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2024, 10:07:21 AMWhen Hamas was still one of the "Palestinian militant groups that operate underground" they managed to cut a bloody swath through Israel with a wave of suicide bombings that killed hundreds and wounded thousands. Rinky dinky terror forces can do extraordinary amounts of damage even without access to sophisticated weaponry. That was part of Israel's strategy of relative benign negelct towards Hamas; the idea was once they were forced to come out of the underground and assume state-like responsibilities, they could be more easily monitored, countered and/or deterred. It worked until it didn't.
None of this happened until Israel withdraw from Gaza, so it goes back to my original point--you are assuming Hamas will be able to operate in a situation like it was before, and not one like the West Bank is under. Israel withdrew from all Gazan cities in 1994 (I think?) and only operate limited military bases on the fringe of the strip. The PA had administrative and day-to-day security control of the cities, where most everyone lived--in this environment Hamas was able to build up for the intifada.
Later under Sharon the IDF withdrew from the strip entirely, which expanded the scale at which Hamas could scale up.
What I am saying right now, and I think all realists who observe this are saying--we are not going back to a situation where the IDF isn't operating in Gaza, probably not for a decade or more.
At some point they will say the war is over and some other stuff will happen, but there won't be 15 (or more realistically, going back to 94) years of IDF staying out of the strip again.
None of this, btw, is to say this means good things for Israel. It is trading one type of problem for another.
Sure if Israel maintains a constant security presence in Gaza, they will be able to deter the growth of another Hamas. But there is a reason they withdrew in the first place, the cost of doing that is heavy. Including direct financial cost, loss of fighting power and effectively to diverting forces to garrison duty, morale hits, and exposing the occupying force to opportunistic murders.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2024, 10:40:31 AMSure if Israel maintains a constant security presence in Gaza, they will be able to deter the growth of another Hamas. But there is a reason they withdrew in the first place, the cost of doing that is heavy. Including direct financial cost, loss of fighting power and effectively to diverting forces to garrison duty, morale hits, and exposing the occupying force to opportunistic murders.
And the important word there is "deter" not "eliminate"
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2024, 10:40:31 AMSure if Israel maintains a constant security presence in Gaza, they will be able to deter the growth of another Hamas. But there is a reason they withdrew in the first place, the cost of doing that is heavy. Including direct financial cost, loss of fighting power and effectively to diverting forces to garrison duty, morale hits, and exposing the occupying force to opportunistic murders.
Right--I mean Israel's political leadership is being facetious that there is any way out of the negative scenario of occupying Gaza. Incidentally one of the few things that could alleviate the bad would be a genuine commitment to the two state solution and working with the PA to move towards that, but that is politically unpalatable to the parties that run the Knesset.
If, by some magic, a two-state solution would be implemented and Palestine becomes an independent recognised state what is to stop Hamas from winning elections and continuing the war?
I don't really see a long term winning scenario for Israel. There's really nothing they can do to deter a hysterically aggressive murderous neighbour from trying to murder them. They can hold the Palestinians down by force, but that will only work until it stops working.
Quote from: Threviel on February 13, 2024, 12:41:36 AMIf, by some magic, a two-state solution would be implemented and Palestine becomes an independent recognised state what is to stop Hamas from winning elections and continuing the war?
I don't really see a long term winning scenario for Israel. There's really nothing they can do to deter a hysterically aggressive murderous neighbour from trying to murder them. They can hold the Palestinians down by force, but that will only work until it stops working.
This is the problem with democracy in the middle east in general really.
There's always a majority that have a habit of voting for ultra conservatives.
The old solution of secular authoritarian dictators isn't exactly brilliant either.
Oden knows what an actual solution could be.
The solution would presumably be economic growth and better education in muslim states in general. As long as the people are poor and uneducated and without hope extremist solutions will have a target audience. If PLO had been able to deliver jobs, education and the promise of a better future Hamas would never have been elected.
Can't really see that happening in any kind of realistic way.
Quote from: Threviel on February 13, 2024, 06:35:39 AMThe solution would presumably be economic growth and better education in muslim states in general. As long as the people are poor and uneducated and without hope extremist solutions will have a target audience. If PLO had been able to deliver jobs, education and the promise of a better future Hamas would never have been elected.
Can't really see that happening in any kind of realistic way.
And how would you deal with the ultra right in Israel?
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2024, 08:16:35 AMQuote from: Threviel on February 13, 2024, 06:35:39 AMThe solution would presumably be economic growth and better education in muslim states in general. As long as the people are poor and uneducated and without hope extremist solutions will have a target audience. If PLO had been able to deliver jobs, education and the promise of a better future Hamas would never have been elected.
Can't really see that happening in any kind of realistic way.
And how would you deal with the ultra right in Israel?
Stop the rocket attacks.
Quote from: Threviel on February 13, 2024, 12:41:36 AMIf, by some magic, a two-state solution would be implemented and Palestine becomes an independent recognised state what is to stop Hamas from winning elections and continuing the war?
I don't really see a long term winning scenario for Israel. There's really nothing they can do to deter a hysterically aggressive murderous neighbour from trying to murder them. They can hold the Palestinians down by force, but that will only work until it stops working.
The same thing that stopped Egypt / Lebanon / Syria from continuing their wars against Israel.
The Palestinian cause is basically down on the mat right now with the referee at about a 5 count, their overall situation is very, very poor. Such desperation helps breed extremism.
In a hypothetical where there was a functioning Palestinian state, even if it was ran by people that hated Israel, over time they would likely care more and more about making their country run and work correctly and less and less about war with Israel.
One of the things that helped Israel's Arab neighbors shift to that way of thinking was simply that they had repeatedly lost wars against Israel. A Palestinian state would be faced with the same calculus.
But I also don't think you would ever see Palestinian statehood occur in which it is likely the first thing they would do is declare war on Israel. Even the most liberal Israeli politicians would not sign off on full statehood until the situation was significantly stabilized.
I think the bigger picture is this war rolls things back to the early 90s, functionally speaking. The whole idea of militarily leaving Gaza to its own devices was a strategic ploy, one that has bitterly failed for the Israelis.
They were active militarily in Gaza for 40 years, the reality is in the immediate sense that is the new norm going forward.
Beyond that who knows what happens. I think to some degree we Westerners often confuse these people (including the Israelis) as being more Western than they really are. Both of these groups seem pretty content to have been fighting for 75 years, I'm not convinced they feel as strongly that the fighting continuing indefinitely is as bad as we view it in the West. Both sides would rather have conflict than make the sort of concessions you would need to get to any sort of settlement.
I think we also frequently try to Westernize the conflict, and view Israel as being in a position of a typical Western power fighting some insurgency. But it isn't really like that. Israel isn't a typical Western country, it was founded as a Jewish ethnostate. It was the culmination of a Jewish political movement. Many of them genuinely believe they have a God given right to the entirety of the land between the river and the sea.
Americans get antsy about overseas wars the turn into long insurgencies--Israel was born out of insurgency, and has been fighting wars its entire life.
There's a lot of cultural and political views that would have to change in Israel I think before we get any real progress on a political settlement. And if anything, given the birth rates in the extremist communities in Israel it looks like the more secular Jews who want such a settlement are becoming a smaller share of the Israeli state over time, not a greater.
Quote from: Threviel on February 13, 2024, 12:41:36 AMIf, by some magic, a two-state solution would be implemented and Palestine becomes an independent recognised state what is to stop Hamas from winning elections and continuing the war?
I don't really see a long term winning scenario for Israel. There's really nothing they can do to deter a hysterically aggressive murderous neighbour from trying to murder them. They can hold the Palestinians down by force, but that will only work until it stops working.
There is the fact that opinion polls have consistently shown that a substantial majority of Palestinians reject the Hamas approach and want a negotiated transition to a two-state solution.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2024, 09:02:39 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2024, 08:16:35 AMAnd how would you deal with the ultra right in Israel?
Stop the rocket attacks.
The rocket attacks have nothing to do with the Israeli right's violence against the Palestinians in the West Bank. The very existence of Palestinians between the river and the sea angers and disgusts them.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2024, 09:02:39 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2024, 08:16:35 AMQuote from: Threviel on February 13, 2024, 06:35:39 AMThe solution would presumably be economic growth and better education in muslim states in general. As long as the people are poor and uneducated and without hope extremist solutions will have a target audience. If PLO had been able to deliver jobs, education and the promise of a better future Hamas would never have been elected.
Can't really see that happening in any kind of realistic way.
And how would you deal with the ultra right in Israel?
Stop the rocket attacks.
I'm not sure how that stops the ultra right for wanting to continue to build settlements. Perhaps you could connect those dots for me.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2024, 10:06:27 AMQuote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2024, 09:02:39 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2024, 08:16:35 AMQuote from: Threviel on February 13, 2024, 06:35:39 AMThe solution would presumably be economic growth and better education in muslim states in general. As long as the people are poor and uneducated and without hope extremist solutions will have a target audience. If PLO had been able to deliver jobs, education and the promise of a better future Hamas would never have been elected.
Can't really see that happening in any kind of realistic way.
And how would you deal with the ultra right in Israel?
Stop the rocket attacks.
I'm not sure how that stops the ultra right for wanting to continue to build settlements. Perhaps you could connect those dots for me.
Palestine bad. Israel good.
Quote from: grumbler on February 13, 2024, 09:53:52 AMThe rocket attacks have nothing to do with the Israeli right's violence against the Palestinians in the West Bank. The very existence of Palestinians between the river and the sea angers and disgusts them.
Yeah... saw a video yesterday of masked (and armed) Israeli settlers walking around in a Palestinian area destroying things (cars, parts of people's homes etc), beating random civilians, etc. Seemed like it was all about terrorizing Palestinians and nothing else.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2024, 10:06:27 AMQuote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2024, 09:02:39 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2024, 08:16:35 AMQuote from: Threviel on February 13, 2024, 06:35:39 AMThe solution would presumably be economic growth and better education in muslim states in general. As long as the people are poor and uneducated and without hope extremist solutions will have a target audience. If PLO had been able to deliver jobs, education and the promise of a better future Hamas would never have been elected.
Can't really see that happening in any kind of realistic way.
And how would you deal with the ultra right in Israel?
Stop the rocket attacks.
I'm not sure how that stops the ultra right for wanting to continue to build settlements. Perhaps you could connect those dots for me.
Trying to kill Israelis pushes them to the far-right. If the Palestinians stopped their psychotic murderousness people would be less willing to tolerate the Ultra-right.
Both sides have plenty of ass-holes. The actions of the settlers and the direct and indirect support from the Israeli state is nothing short of despicable.
That's where the magic comes in. It would probably take magic to get a two-state solution since both sides are so thoroughly dug in.
Quote from: Threviel on February 13, 2024, 12:06:21 PMBoth sides have plenty of ass-holes. The actions of the settlers and the direct and indirect support from the Israeli state is nothing short of despicable.
That's where the magic comes in. It would probably take magic to get a two-state solution since both sides are so thoroughly dug in.
I agree entirely. And sadly I think we are at least two generations away from a solution.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2024, 11:15:24 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2024, 10:06:27 AMQuote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2024, 09:02:39 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2024, 08:16:35 AMQuote from: Threviel on February 13, 2024, 06:35:39 AMThe solution would presumably be economic growth and better education in muslim states in general. As long as the people are poor and uneducated and without hope extremist solutions will have a target audience. If PLO had been able to deliver jobs, education and the promise of a better future Hamas would never have been elected.
Can't really see that happening in any kind of realistic way.
And how would you deal with the ultra right in Israel?
Stop the rocket attacks.
I'm not sure how that stops the ultra right for wanting to continue to build settlements. Perhaps you could connect those dots for me.
Trying to kill Israelis pushes them to the far-right. If the Palestinians stopped their psychotic murderousness people would be less willing to tolerate the Ultra-right.
Yeah sure. Like Americans. They are driven to the far right by murderous rapist Mexicans. That's what pushes them to the MAGA GOP.
Egypt is building a buffer zone near the border with concrete walls and such to make sure Palestinians won't overflow into Egypt. Grim.
Quote from: Tamas on February 16, 2024, 03:53:09 AMEgypt is building a buffer zone near the border with concrete walls and such to make sure Palestinians won't overflow into Egypt. Grim.
You probably won't hear the protesters about that so it's okay.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 16, 2024, 07:38:09 AMQuote from: Tamas on February 16, 2024, 03:53:09 AMEgypt is building a buffer zone near the border with concrete walls and such to make sure Palestinians won't overflow into Egypt. Grim.
You probably won't hear the protesters about that so it's okay.
I can see what you're doing here. Trying play the old game of people looking out for Palestinian human rights are just looking for an excuse to be anti semitic.
Egypt obviously hasn't been the main problem with Gazas pre war status but it has still attracted a lot of criticism.
I'd be very surprised if Egypt didn't get criticism for this move given they will be seen as more likely to change their mind than Israel.
Israel does remain the core problem as they have the power to totally stop the humanitarian disaster if it wanted. They're the ones actually dropping bombs.
Quote from: Josquius on February 16, 2024, 08:14:28 AMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 16, 2024, 07:38:09 AMQuote from: Tamas on February 16, 2024, 03:53:09 AMEgypt is building a buffer zone near the border with concrete walls and such to make sure Palestinians won't overflow into Egypt. Grim.
You probably won't hear the protesters about that so it's okay.
I can see what you're doing here. Trying play the old game of people looking out for Palestinian human rights are just looking for an excuse to be anti semitic.
Egypt obviously hasn't been the main problem with Gazas pre war status but it has still attracted a lot of criticism.
I'd be very surprised if Egypt didn't get criticism for this move given they will be seen as more likely to change their mind than Israel.
Israel does remain the core problem as they have the power to totally stop the humanitarian disaster if it wanted. They're the ones actually dropping bombs.
I guess we'll see on the next London protest how many will be calling for Egypt to help the civilians.
But I do agree that considering Egypt is closing all escape routes, the right thing for Israel to do is to not launch the planned offensive.
What they should do is enact a siege and publish the list of Hamas leaders who need to turn themselves in to Israel for the siege to be lifted.
Israel is not the only ones able to stop the war. Hamas can surrender and the humanitarian disaster is over tomorrow.
Quote from: Threviel on February 16, 2024, 09:26:52 AMIsrael is not the only ones able to stop the war. Hamas can surrender and the humanitarian disaster is over tomorrow.
I really don't think this is true.
If Hamas announces henceforth it surrenders (how? Have Israel given them that option?) You'd still get plenty of senior Hamas members and other associated people not keen on handing themselves over to the Israeli military.
It would ultimately have to be Israel's decision that Hamas is beaten enough to stop.
Quote from: Josquius on February 16, 2024, 09:35:34 AMQuote from: Threviel on February 16, 2024, 09:26:52 AMIsrael is not the only ones able to stop the war. Hamas can surrender and the humanitarian disaster is over tomorrow.
I really don't think this is true.
If Hamas announces henceforth it surrenders (how? Have Israel given them that option?) You'd still get plenty of senior Hamas members and other associated people not keen on handing themselves over to the Israeli military.
It would ultimately have to be Israel's decision that Hamas is beaten enough to stop.
Surrender is always possible. They choose not to, as you point out. Their own life and/or notion to resist until Israel is driven to the sea is more important to them than their own population. It's a legit stance. But then the side who is the target of the sea-driving doesn't hold responsibility on their own if they decide not to allow for these people to live.
But, again, in this specific situation I do think Israel should stop and start a siege to attain the surrender.
Time is not on Israels side, forced starvation will turn everyone on them. Hamas knows this, it's in their interest to draw everything out as long as possible. Suffering of civilians is their primary weapon.
You can definitely feel the many supporters of Hamas (which includes most leftists in Europe and America, probably half the governments of the EU, most of the governments of the Middle East, and most of the UN's bureaucracy) getting terribly worried Hamas is imminently going to lose its last stronghold.
Quote from: Threviel on February 16, 2024, 09:48:00 AMTime is not on Israels side, forced starvation will turn everyone on them. Hamas knows this, it's in their interest to draw everything out as long as possible. Suffering of civilians is their primary weapon.
I think Israel's only good option is to begin the Rafah clearing operations within the next month, they need to conduct it more like Khan Younis than they did North Gaza--the Israelis burned through a lot of international good will with the very aggressive bombing campaign in the North. It is also likely why they pushed so much of Hamas out of the North so quickly, but more infantry-based clearing operations like they utilized in Khan Younis will produce much lower civilian casualties--but certainly higher IDF casualties.
I'm not sure Hamas can really surrender. I can't see how they could surrender purely practically?
They're effectively running Gaza - but they're not a state, they don't have an army, there's no overall commander who can sign a surrender. They can no more surrender than any other terrorist group can. There'd be splinter groups, probably internal fights for control of the "brand".
It's one of the things about peace processes with terrorist organisations is making sure that the person in the terrorist group you're talking to has the internal credibility and clout to bring the rest of their movement with them, without it just splintering into a hundred small terrorist organisations - especially with an umbrella group like Hamas. And you need to maintain that other parties internal credibility which is challenging for a normal state.
They do have an Army, their 24 organized brigades (of which I think all but 6 have been destroyed.) And they do have a military leadership, but certainly their effective C&C is in very bad right now.
I have seen floated ideas of letting the military leadership inside the strip take exile in Qatar or Algeria or something as part of a peace deal.
Yeah but I think a crucial bit of an army is that it will follow orders and I'm just not sure that's the case. If the annoucement came that "we have surrendered, lay down your arms", I don't think it would happen and I think that means it's not really an army in the way we would undertand. It's paramilitaries, militias - but not something with the discipline, order-following bit of a real military.
If the military leadership surrender and then go into exile in Qatar - how likely is it that the Hamas footsoldiers will follow the order to surrender? They're situation hasn't changed and they've not been bought off or offered a tax free lifestyle in the Gulf.
Their level of support and ability would diminish if Hamas "surrendered" because Iran would need to find a new group, there'd be internal fights for control and - I'd guess - probably eventual consolidation, but that might take a long time. But I don't think it would end the risk to Israel of Gaza - especially as attacking Israel is the way to build credibility and legitimacy.
Quote from: Threviel on February 16, 2024, 09:26:52 AMIsrael is not the only ones able to stop the war. Hamas can surrender and the humanitarian disaster is over tomorrow.
How do they do that? Who will surrender? Who will accept that the surrender is total?
You come from the point of view that Israel is content with Hamas destruction and will leave the Palestinian alone after that. That is a very naive view.
So, Hamas "surrenders", Israel says goodbye, kiss Palestinians on the cheek, "see you next month" packs things and go home? All is good and well? No more colonization, no more Israeli troops in Gaza, no more bombardments, self determination for all remaining Palestinians and the territory is back to its pre-war status?
Quote from: viper37 on February 16, 2024, 01:00:53 PMQuote from: Threviel on February 16, 2024, 09:26:52 AMIsrael is not the only ones able to stop the war. Hamas can surrender and the humanitarian disaster is over tomorrow.
How do they do that? Who will surrender? Who will accept that the surrender is total?
You come from the point of view that Israel is content with Hamas destruction and will leave the Palestinian alone after that. That is a very naive view.
So, Hamas "surrenders", Israel says goodbye, kiss Palestinians on the cheek, "see you next month" packs things and go home? All is good and well? No more colonization, no more Israeli troops in Gaza, no more bombardments, self determination for all remaining Palestinians and the territory is back to its pre-war status?
What you seem to be arguing for is that Hamas' existence is justified by the ills afflicted on Palestinians by Israel.
Quote from: Josquius on February 16, 2024, 08:14:28 AMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 16, 2024, 07:38:09 AMQuote from: Tamas on February 16, 2024, 03:53:09 AMEgypt is building a buffer zone near the border with concrete walls and such to make sure Palestinians won't overflow into Egypt. Grim.
You probably won't hear the protesters about that so it's okay.
I can see what you're doing here. Trying play the old game of people looking out for Palestinian human rights are just looking for an excuse to be anti semitic.
In fairness there are some who oppose Israel because it is supported by the US. But really, not even Palestinians are that concerned with Palestinian human rights. See statements by Hamas.
So again, Hamas is being equated with all Palestinians.
Are you just not understanding the nuances or are you just purposefully ignoring them because it suits your worldview to do so?
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 16, 2024, 02:10:30 PMSo again, Hamas is being equated with all Palestinians.
Are you just not understanding the nuances or are you just purposefully ignoring them because it suits your worldview to do so?
They are Palestinians, I didn't say ALL Palestinians. But they are Palestinians and they are in a leadership position and they don't give a shit what happens to their people.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2024, 02:51:18 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 16, 2024, 02:10:30 PMSo again, Hamas is being equated with all Palestinians.
Are you just not understanding the nuances or are you just purposefully ignoring them because it suits your worldview to do so?
They are Palestinians, I didn't say ALL Palestinians. But they are Palestinians and they are in a leadership position and they don't give a shit what happens to their people.
Ok, then your grammar is just poor. Fair enough.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2024, 02:51:18 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 16, 2024, 02:10:30 PMSo again, Hamas is being equated with all Palestinians.
Are you just not understanding the nuances or are you just purposefully ignoring them because it suits your worldview to do so?
They are Palestinians, I didn't say ALL Palestinians. But they are Palestinians and they are in a leadership position and they don't give a shit what happens to their people.
That's a pretty naff phrasing. Go to any country in the world and you'll find child abusers, murderers, and people who work in kitchens but don't wash their hands.
Still couldn't really say " Irish are constantly scratching their nuts" because of Micky MacGuire.
Quote from: Josquius on February 16, 2024, 02:54:44 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2024, 02:51:18 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 16, 2024, 02:10:30 PMSo again, Hamas is being equated with all Palestinians.
Are you just not understanding the nuances or are you just purposefully ignoring them because it suits your worldview to do so?
They are Palestinians, I didn't say ALL Palestinians. But they are Palestinians and they are in a leadership position and they don't give a shit what happens to their people.
That's a pretty naff phrasing. Go to any country in the world and you'll find child abusers, murderers, and people who work in kitchens but don't wash their hands.
Still couldn't really say " Irish are constantly scratching their nuts" because of Micky MacGuire.
I use it the same way as I would say "The Russians don't care if their people killed in Ukraine." You wouldn't have a problem with that. In fact I've said things like that here before and you didn't seem bothered.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2024, 03:42:45 PM]
I use it the same way as I would say "The Russians don't care if their people killed in Ukraine." You wouldn't have a problem with that. In fact I've said things like that here before and you didn't seem bothered.
Russia is an authoritarian dictatorship with a very definite strong central leadership who are the ones ordering troops to their death.
Palestine is quite a mess. Hamas have a strongest gang on the block sort of rule over the lesser part of it.
To speak of the Palestinians referring even to the proper Palestinian government isn't such a strong link as with russia. To say it referring to Hamas is extra weird.
Quote from: Tamas on February 16, 2024, 01:28:52 PMQuote from: viper37 on February 16, 2024, 01:00:53 PMQuote from: Threviel on February 16, 2024, 09:26:52 AMIsrael is not the only ones able to stop the war. Hamas can surrender and the humanitarian disaster is over tomorrow.
How do they do that? Who will surrender? Who will accept that the surrender is total?
You come from the point of view that Israel is content with Hamas destruction and will leave the Palestinian alone after that. That is a very naive view.
So, Hamas "surrenders", Israel says goodbye, kiss Palestinians on the cheek, "see you next month" packs things and go home? All is good and well? No more colonization, no more Israeli troops in Gaza, no more bombardments, self determination for all remaining Palestinians and the territory is back to its pre-war status?
What you seem to be arguing for is that Hamas' existence is justified by the ills afflicted on Palestinians by Israel.
No. I am arguing that Israel will not stop the war because some top leaders of Hamas surrender themselves. Israel wants the territory. They've said so already more than once. They don't want Palestinians to manage the place, they don't want Palestinians to be there at all.
If low level Hamas foot soldiers surrenders, it's obviously not enough. If some top level executive of Hamas leadership announce some form of surrender but some foot soldiers keep on fighting/committing terrorism actions, even if not affiliated with Hamas, Israel will use it as a justification to keep attacking and occupying the territories.
Only Israel can make peace. Hamas is not a real government, and even if it was, it can't do shit unless Israel allows it.
Quote from: Josquius on February 16, 2024, 03:46:41 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2024, 03:42:45 PM]
I use it the same way as I would say "The Russians don't care if their people killed in Ukraine." You wouldn't have a problem with that. In fact I've said things like that here before and you didn't seem bothered.
Russia is an authoritarian dictatorship with a very definite strong central leadership who are the ones ordering troops to their death.
Palestine is quite a mess. Hamas have a strongest gang on the block sort of rule over the lesser part of it.
To speak of the Palestinians referring even to the proper Palestinian government isn't such a strong link as with russia. To say it referring to Hamas is extra weird.
Yes, you have already expressed you belief that nobody in Palestine is responsible for anything. They are just an innocent child-people, entirely passive.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2024, 03:59:13 PMQuote from: Josquius on February 16, 2024, 03:46:41 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2024, 03:42:45 PM]
I use it the same way as I would say "The Russians don't care if their people killed in Ukraine." You wouldn't have a problem with that. In fact I've said things like that here before and you didn't seem bothered.
Russia is an authoritarian dictatorship with a very definite strong central leadership who are the ones ordering troops to their death.
Palestine is quite a mess. Hamas have a strongest gang on the block sort of rule over the lesser part of it.
To speak of the Palestinians referring even to the proper Palestinian government isn't such a strong link as with russia. To say it referring to Hamas is extra weird.
Yes, you have already expressed you belief that nobody in Palestine is responsible for anything. They are just an innocent child-people, entirely passive.
... Wut?
This reply makes zero sense. You might as well have just said potato potato potato.
Quote from: viper37 on February 16, 2024, 03:49:36 PMOnly Israel can make peace. Hamas is not a real government, and even if it was, it can't do shit unless Israel allows it.
Wait, Hamas couldn't stop itself from launching the October 6th attack? It can't stop itself from shooting rockets at Israel?
On Egypt:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/16/egypt-building-walled-enclosure-in-sinai-for-rafah-refugees-videos-suggest
Quote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2024, 04:10:57 PMQuote from: viper37 on February 16, 2024, 03:49:36 PMOnly Israel can make peace. Hamas is not a real government, and even if it was, it can't do shit unless Israel allows it.
Wait, Hamas couldn't stop itself from launching the October 6th attack? It can't stop itself from shooting rockets at Israel?
Did Israel wait Oct 6th before invading the West Bank?
Answer the question viper.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2024, 08:19:54 PMAnswer the question viper.
Hamas could stop lauching rockets. Some other organization could still launch rockets or perform attacks. Or not. Israel would not still not relinquish any territory or stop expelling Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank.
Bibi said its goal was the destruction of Hamas. If you want to destroy an ant nest, you want to kill all the ants and the queen. Not just the queen, but all the workers too. Not just the workers, but the queen too. And then you want turn the ground to destroy the nest extending over many kilometers.
The problem with ants, is that they are very hard to number precisely. Same with Hamas and their associates. How many fighters are there? 10 000? 12 000? 14 053? Will Israel stop at 14 010? There will always be one more to pick up a rifle and fight the invader. "Hamas" or whatever the name of the name of enemy, it will never cease to exist. It will always be there. When will Hamas be destroyed? What is Hamas? Does it include the other groups waging war with Israel or only the card-carrying Hamas members?
That's why I'm saying Hamas can't stop the war and only Israel can. Israel has set the goals to officially stop the war. I know it's bullshit. You know it. We all know it. You just refuse to speak of it publicly or are willifully blinding yourself. They don't want any kind of Palestinian organization to exists, any kind of meaningful Palestinian population to exist on their borders, or even in their State. That's always been the goal, and they don't even shy anymore from saying it publicly.
I had a revelation yesterday night, while listening to Aanal Nathraak's Endarkment. Good song, very relaxing.
You should read this book, very enlightening:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,13 and 14 are there in Israel's society and you approve of it, defend of it. Happily.
Only 12 is missing. For now. Sort of. But we've seen that women's opinion are dismissed. We just don't know if it was because they were women.
You're slipping. You're become what you're suppose to hate. Will you vote for the Orange clown too when the time comes? Just to be on the side on the strong too? Or will you let yourself be culled by your strong pro-Bibi MAGA friends?
If Israel relinquished territory the attacks would still happen. The Hamas charter says so. In fact the Palestinians would have much, much more territory if they simply didn't try to genocide the Jews in the first place. And then keep trying it for 80 years. But that's racial hatred for you. Maybe one day they will realize that shooting rockets at people on results in getting their shit wrecked.
When I want to kill ants I used to pour gasoline on the nest. Seemed to work. Other people use poison. Some enterprising people pour liquid aluminum down the next. There are plenty of ways to kill ants.
Or you could just... Not get your kicks killing ants?
And how's that one go. The sins of the father are visited upon the children? An eye for an eye makes the world blind? Isn't there one about group punishment as well? - most of those Palestinians being victimised have nothing to do with the militants.
So the Palestinians deserve everything coming to them because they attacked Israel way back when is a pretty terrible world outlook (didn't Israel start it anyway?).
By that same train of thought aren't the anti semites right to hate Jews what with the JC killing? I mean. Exactly the same "logic".
Seriously raz. I don't know why but on Israel-Palestine you truly have an amazingly blinkered black and white view.
Both sides have their shit heads and you can't blame their existence purely on the others past misdeeds.
Quote from: Josquius on February 17, 2024, 02:34:12 AMOr you could just... Not get your kicks killing ants?
And how's that one go. The sins of the father are visited upon the children? An eye for an eye makes the world blind? Isn't there one about group punishment as well? - most of those Palestinians being victimised have nothing to do with the militants.
So the Palestinians deserve everything coming to them because they attacked Israel way back when is a pretty terrible world outlook (didn't Israel start it anyway?).
By that same train of thought aren't the anti semites right to hate Jews what with the JC killing? I mean. Exactly the same "logic".
Seriously raz. I don't know why but on Israel-Palestine you truly have an amazingly blinkered black and white view.
Both sides have their shit heads and you can't blame their existence purely on the others past misdeeds.
We all live with the borders based on the actions of our ancestors. The Germans live with truncated borders because of shit they started in the 1930's. They've come to terms with it. The Palestinians are going to have do the same.
Sorry, Jos. Genocidal Antisemites rub me the wrong way.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2024, 10:49:32 PMIf Israel relinquished territory the attacks would still happen. The Hamas charter says so. In fact the Palestinians would have much, much more territory if they simply didn't try to genocide the Jews in the first place. And then keep trying it for 80 years. But that's racial hatred for you. Maybe one day they will realize that shooting rockets at people on results in getting their shit wrecked.
The Hamas charter also says that Jews are to be perfectly safe and content in an Islamic Palestine. You should go back to your history books if you think that the Palestinians were the ones who "tried] to genocide the Jews in the first place." Adolph Hitler was not Palestinians nor were the death camps run by Palestinians. You'll find out, with very little research, that it was Nazis that tried to "genocide the Jews." And no one has been trying to "genocide the Jews" for "80 years."
You cannot learn from history if the history you cite is just one made up by yourself on the fly.
Hamas is a criminal organization that should be wiped from the face of the earth... but not at any cost.
The issue here isn't annexing Israeli land back to Palestine.
It's Israel denying Palestine freedom within its own borders and eroding what land is Palestinian ever more.
It's as if the Germans had their east taken but then had to spend the next 80 years with the Polish army enforcing whatever laws they wanted, denying Germany the ability to be anything like an independent country and Polish fascists regularly seizing German farms to build new towns for Poles.
Hamas and Co suck.
But it's perfectly understandable why they're so appealing to many angry young men. Israels hands are far from clean.
Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2024, 11:18:06 AMQuote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2024, 10:49:32 PMIf Israel relinquished territory the attacks would still happen. The Hamas charter says so. In fact the Palestinians would have much, much more territory if they simply didn't try to genocide the Jews in the first place. And then keep trying it for 80 years. But that's racial hatred for you. Maybe one day they will realize that shooting rockets at people on results in getting their shit wrecked.
The Hamas charter also says that Jews are to be perfectly safe and content in an Islamic Palestine. You should go back to your history books if you think that the Palestinians were the ones who "tried] to genocide the Jews in the first place." Adolph Hitler was not Palestinians nor were the death camps run by Palestinians. You'll find out, with very little research, that it was Nazis that tried to "genocide the Jews." And no one has been trying to "genocide the Jews" for "80 years."
You cannot learn from history if the history you cite is just one made up by yourself on the fly.
Hamas is a criminal organization that should be wiped from the face of the earth... but not at any cost.
The Arabs were pretty clear that they wanted to drive the Jews into the sea.
Quote from: Josquius on February 17, 2024, 11:22:38 AMThe issue here isn't annexing Israeli land back to Palestine.
It's Israel denying Palestine freedom within its own borders and eroding what land is Palestinian ever more.
It's as if the Germans had their east taken but then had to spend the next 80 years with the Polish army enforcing whatever laws they wanted, denying Germany the ability to be anything like an independent country and Polish fascists regularly seizing German farms to build new towns for Poles.
Hamas and Co suck.
But it's perfectly understandable why they're so appealing to many angry young men. Israels hands are far from clean.
Yeah, the Palestinians want the whole enchilada. Polls are pretty clear on that. The River to the Sea. Hamas and Co represent the mainstream of Palestinian politics.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/jewish-anti-semitism-harvard-claudine-gay-zionism/677454/
QuoteBy now, december's congressional hearing about anti-Semitism at universities, during which the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and MIT all claimed that calls for the genocide of Jews would violate their university's policies only "depending on the context," is already a well-worn meme. Surely there is nothing left to say about this higher-education train wreck, after the fallout brought down two of those university presidents and spawned a thousand op-eds—except that all of the punditry about diversity and free speech and criticism of Israel has extravagantly missed the point.
The problem was not that Jewish students on American university campuses didn't want free speech, or that they didn't want to hear criticism of Israel. Instead, they didn't want people vandalizing Jewish student organizations' buildings, or breaking or urinating on the buildings' windows. They didn't want people tearing their mezuzahs down from their dorm-room doors. They didn't want their college instructors spouting anti-Semitic lies and humiliating them in class. They didn't want their posters defaced with Hitler caricatures, or their dorm windows plastered with fuck jews. They didn't want people punching them in the face, or beating them with a stick, or threatening them with death for being Jewish. At world-class American colleges and universities, all of this happened and more.
I was not merely an observer of this spectacle. I'd been serving on now–former Harvard President Claudine Gay's anti-Semitism advisory committee, convened after the October 7 Hamas massacre in Israel and amid student responses to it. I was asked to participate because I am a Harvard alumna who wrote a book about anti-Semitism called People Love Dead Jews. As soon as my participation became public, I was inundated with messages from Jewish students seeking help. They approached me with their stories after having already tried many other avenues—bewildered not only by what they'd experienced, but also by how many people dismissed or denied those experiences.
In Congress, all three university presidents offered some version of the platitudes that "Hatred comes from ignorance" and "Education is the answer." But if hatred comes from ignorance, why were America's best universities full of this very specific ignorance? And why were so many people trying to justify it, explain it away, or even deny it? Our era's 10-second news cycle is no match for these questions, because the answers are deep and ancient, buried beneath the oldest of assumptions about what we think we know.
The through line of anti-Semitism for thousands of years has been the denial of truth and the promotion of lies. These lies range in scope from conspiracy theories to Holocaust denial to the blood libel to the currently popular claims that Zionism is racism, that Jews are settler colonialists, and that Jewish civilization isn't indigenous to the land of Israel. These lies are all part of the foundational big lie: that anti-Semitism itself is a righteous act of resistance against evil, because Jews are collectively evil and have no right to exist. Today, the big lie is winning.
In 2013, David Nirenberg published an astonishing book titled Anti-Judaism. Nirenberg's argument, rigorously laid out in nearly 500 pages of dense scholarship and more than 100 pages of footnotes, is that Western cultures—including ancient civilizations, Christianity, Islam (which Nirenberg considers Western in its relationship with Judaism), and post-religious societies—have often defined themselves through their opposition to what they consider "Judaism." This has little to do with actual Judaism, and a lot to do with whatever evil these non-Jewish cultures aspire to overcome.
Nirenberg is a diligent historian who resists generalizations and avoids connecting the past to contemporary events. But when one reads through his carefully assembled record of 23 centuries' worth of intellectual leaders articulating their societies' ideals by loudly rejecting whatever they consider "Jewish," this deep neural groove in Western thought becomes difficult to dismiss, its patterns unmistakable. If piety was a given society's ideal, Jews were impious blasphemers; if secularism was the ideal, Jews were backward pietists. If capitalism was evil, Jews were capitalists; if communism was evil, Jews were communists. If nationalism was glorified, Jews were rootless cosmopolitans; if nationalism was vilified, Jews were chauvinistic nationalists. "Anti-Judaism" thus becomes a righteous fight to promote justice.
This dynamic forces Jews into the defensive mode of constantly proving they are not evil, and even simply that they have a right to exist. Around 38 C.E., after rioters in Alexandria destroyed hundreds of Jewish homes and burned Jews alive, the Jewish Alexandrian intellectual Philo and the non-Jewish Alexandrian intellectual Apion both sailed to Rome for a "debate" before Emperor Caligula about whether Jews deserved citizenship. Apion believed that Jews held an annual ritual in which they kidnapped a non-Jew, fattened him up, and ate him. Caligula delayed Philo's rebuttal for five months, and then listened to him only while consulting with designers on palace decor. Alexandrian Jews lost their citizenship rights, though it took until 66 C.E. for 50,000 more of them to be slaughtered.
In medieval Europe, Jews were forced into disputations with Christian priests that placed Jewish texts and traditions on public trial, resulting in Jewish books being burned and Jewish disputants exiled. Later legal trials expanded on this concept, requiring Jews to defend themselves against the absurd charge known as the blood libel, in which Jews are accused of murdering and consuming non-Jewish children—a claim that has echoes in current lies about Israelis harvesting Palestinians' organs.
The absurdity of these charges is less remarkable than the high intellectual profiles of those making them: people like Apion, a scholar of Homer and Egyptian history, as well as Christian and Muslim scholars who were among the best-read people of their time. Similarly absurd claims of Jewish perfidy were later endorsed by civilizational luminaries such as Martin Luther and Voltaire. "Anti-Judaism," Nirenberg argues, "should not be understood as some archaic or irrational closet in the vast edifices of Western thought. It was rather one of the basic tools with which that edifice was constructed."
I've been thinking about Nirenberg's thesis in the months since the October 7 massacre in Israel, during which Hamas, an openly genocidal organization whose stated goal is the murder of Jews, lived up to its mission statement by torturing, raping, and murdering more than 1,200 people in southern Israel and taking more than 200 captives, including babies, children, and the elderly. Shortly after the attacks, a Cornell professor publicly proclaimed the barbarity "exhilarating" and "energizing," while a Columbia professor called it "awesome" and an "achievement." Comparable praise percolated through America's top universities, coming from students and faculty alike. On campuses around the country, students began gathering regularly to chant "There is only one solution: intifada revolution!"—a reference to a suicide-bombing campaign in Israel a generation ago that maimed and murdered well over 1,000 Jews. (If there is only one solution, perhaps one could call it the Final Solution.)
Students took these rallies inside libraries and other campus buildings. They vandalized university property with such slogans as "Zionism = Genocide," "New Intifada," and "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free"—referring to a geographic area that encompasses the entirety of the state of Israel, where half the world's Jews live. (At Harvard, some students opted for chanting an Arabic version: "From water to water, Palestine is Arab.") On some campuses, the exhilaration escalated into death threats and physical assaults against Jewish students. When a Jewish Tulane University student tried to stop an anti-Israel protester near campus from burning an Israeli flag, protesters attacked him and other Jewish students, breaking one student's nose.
It wasn't just universities. Crowds cheering for "intifada" gathered in cities around the country, shutting down and disrupting train stations and airport access roads. Lest their support for Hamas be mistaken for support for Palestinians in general, or for peace, U.S. rally organizers named their efforts "floods" ("Flood Seattle for Palestine," "Flood Manhattan for Gaza") after "Operation Al Aqsa Flood," Hamas's name for its October 7 butchery. The enthusiasm was hard to contain. Some people tore down or vandalized posters of Israeli hostages. Others targeted synagogues and Jewish-owned businesses, spray-painting them with swastikas and slogans like "Israel's only religion is capitalism." In New York City, a Jewish teacher's online photo holding a sign that said i stand with israel was enough to prompt a schoolwide protest that devolved into a riot during which students destroyed school property; the teacher had to be moved to another part of the building to avoid the teenage mob screaming "Free Palestine!" In Los Angeles, a man invaded a Jewish family's home before dawn with a knife, breaking into the parents' bedroom while their four children slept, screaming "Kill Jewish people." When police arrested him, he shouted, "Free Palestine!"
Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic: Jews are now required to recite this humiliatingly obvious sentence, over and over, as the price of admission to public discourse about their own demonization, in "debates" with people who are often unable to name the relevant river or sea. The many legitimate concerns about Israel's policies toward Palestinians, and the many legitimate concerns about Israel's current war in Gaza, cannot explain these eliminationist chants and slogans, the glee with which they are delivered, the lawlessness that has accompanied them, or the open assaults on Jews. The timing alone laid the game bare: This mass exhilaration first emerged not in response to Israel's war to take down Hamas and rescue its kidnapped citizens, but exactly in response to, and explicitly in support of, the most lethal and sadistic barbarity against Jews since the Holocaust, complete with rape and decapitation and the abduction of infants, committed by a regime that aims to eviscerate not only Jews, but also all hopes of Palestinian flourishing, coexistence, or peace.
But there are nuances to sadistic barbarity against Jews, we are told, and sometimes gang-raping Jewish women is actually a movement for human rights. It hardly seems fair to call people anti-Semitic if they want only half of the world's Jews to die. The phrase "Globalize the Intifada," currently chanted at universities across America, perhaps widens the net a tiny bit—but really, who can say? Even the phrase "Gas the Jews," chanted at a rally organized by NYU students and faculty, is so very ambiguous. How dare those whiny Jews presume to know what's in other people's hearts?
Besides, American Jews had nothing to whine about: Had any of them actually died in the United States from all this exhilaration? That question was answered in November, when a Jewish man died in California after an anti-Israel protester allegedly clubbed him over the head with a bullhorn, the kind used to chant entirely non-anti-Semitic slogans—and of course that question had already been answered repeatedly with other anti-Semitic murders in recent years, some more publicized than others. (One murder even happened on campus: In 2022, an expelled University of Arizona student who repeatedly ranted about Jews and Zionists shot and killed his professor—who wasn't Jewish, though the student thought he was.) But now the goalposts move again: Those actual murders, along with many other physical attacks against American Jews, are all just one-offs, lone wolves, mental-illness cases, entirely unrelated to the anti-Semitic rhetoric swirling through American life.
It remains unclear why anti-Semitism should matter only when it is lethal, or if so, how many unambiguously anti-Semitic murders would be necessary for anti-Semitism to be happening outside whiny Jews' heads. A realistic estimate might be 6 million. Even then, Jews have had to spend the past 80 years collecting documentation to prove it.
One confounding fact in this onslaught of the world's oldest hatred is that American society should have been ready to handle it. Many public and private institutions have invested enormously in recent years in attempts to defang bigotry; ours is an era in which even sneaker companies feel obliged to publicly denounce hate. But diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives have proved to be no match for anti-Semitism, for a clear reason: the durable idea of anti-Semitism as justice.
DEI efforts are designed to combat the effects of social prejudice by insisting on equity: Some people in our society have too much power and too much privilege, and are overrepresented, so justice requires leveling the playing field. But anti-Semitism isn't primarily a social prejudice. It is a conspiracy theory: the big lie that Jews are supervillains manipulating others. The righteous fight for justice therefore does not require protecting Jews as a vulnerable minority. Instead it requires taking Jews down.
This idea is tacitly endorsed by Jews' bizarre exclusion from discussion in many DEI trainings and even policies, despite their high ranking in American hate-crime statistics. The premise, for instance, that Jews don't experience bigotry because they are "white," itself a fraught idea, would suggest that white LGBTQ people don't experience bigotry either—a premise that no DEI policy would endorse (not to mention the fact that many Jews are not white). The contention that Jews are immune to bigotry because they are "rich," an idea even more fraught and also often false (about 20 percent of Jews in New York City, for instance, live in poverty or near-poverty), is equally nonsensical. No one claims that gay men or Indian Americans never experience bigotry because of those groups' statistically higher incomes. The idea that money erases bigotry apparently applies only to Jews. Again and again, the ostensible reasons for not addressing anti-Semitism in DEI initiatives quickly reveal themselves to be founded on ancient, rarely examined assumptions about Jews as invulnerable villains.
The sordid history of the concept of anti-Zionism vividly illustrates this dynamic—and is particularly relevant for its success in scrambling the radar of well-meaning people. Jewish civilization has been centered for thousands of years, in ways large and small, on its homeland in Israel, where Jews have had a continuous presence since ancient times. The modern political idea of Zionism as Jewish self-determination in this homeland emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries amid many other anticolonial movements around the world, as global power dynamics shifted from empires (Habsburg, Russian, Ottoman, British, French, Japanese) toward nation-states. The large and often violent population upheavals following Israel's creation, including the displacement of most Arabs from what became Israel and the displacement of nearly all Jews from what became Arab states, paralleled similar population upheavals around the world as new states emerged from receding empires. In this, Zionism was typical.
But anti-Zionism as an explicit political concept has a history quite independent of the actions of Jews. In 1918, 30 years before the establishment of the state of Israel, Bolsheviks established Jewish sections of the Communist Party, which they insisted be anti-Zionist. The problem, Bolsheviks argued, was that Jewish particularism (in this case, Zionism) was the obstacle to the righteous universal mission of uniting humanity under communism—just as Christians once saw Jewish particularism as the obstacle to the righteous universal mission of uniting humanity under Christ. The righteousness of this mission was, as usual, the key: The claim that "anti-Zionism" was unrelated to anti-Semitism, repeated ad nauseam in Soviet propaganda for decades, was essential to the Communist Party's self-branding as humanity's liberators. It was also a bald-faced lie.
Bolsheviks quickly demonstrated their supposed lack of anti-Semitism by shutting down every "Zionist" institution under their control, a category that ranged from synagogues to sports clubs; appropriating their assets; taking over their buildings, sometimes physically destroying offices; and arresting and ultimately "purging" Jewish leaders, including those who had endorsed the party line and persecuted their fellow Jews for their "Zionism." Thousands of Jews were persecuted, imprisoned, tortured, or murdered.
Later, the U.S.S.R. exported this messaging to its client states in the developing world and ultimately to social-justice-minded circles in the United States. A thick paper trail shows how the KGB adapted its propaganda by explicitly rebranding Zionism as "racism" and "colonialism," beginning half a century ago, when those terms gained currency as potent smears—even though Jews are racially diverse and Zionism is one of the world's premier examples of an indigenous people reclaiming independence. Facts were irrelevant: Soviets labeled Jews as racist colonialist oppressors, just as Nazis had labeled Jews as both capitalist and Communist oppressors, and just as Christians and Muslims had labeled Jews as God-killers and Prophet-defilers. Jews were whatever a given society regarded as evil. To borrow the language of DEI, the big lie is systemic.
Even naming it—that is, calling out bigotry against Jews—can be classed as yet another sign of assumed evil intent, of Jews attacking beloved principles of justice for all. In an April 2023 lecture, David Nirenberg, the historian, presented the example of an activist with a large following whose boundary-pushing rhetoric met with accusations of anti-Semitism. The activist pointed out, as Nirenberg put it, that anti-Semitism "was merely an accusation that Jews used to silence criticism and squash free speech." He brought libel lawsuits against newspapers that accused him of anti-Semitism, and won them. It is unfortunate for those making this argument today that this activist was named Adolf Hitler.
Two weeks after the October 7 massacre, I wrote an op-ed for a national newspaper about the intergenerational fears many Jews were feeling, describing a few choice moments from several thousand years of anti-Semitic attacks. A friendly fact-checker followed up, asking me to prove that the Russian Civil War pogroms of 1918–21 involved gang rapes, and appending a judicious reportedly in front of a detail I'd included from the Farhud pogrom in Baghdad in 1941 about attackers taking Jewish women's severed breasts as trophies. I dutifully provided additional sources, combing through sickening testimonies about mutilated Jewish girls in 1919 and 1941, while simultaneously avoiding videos of mutilated Jewish girls in 2023.
As I piled up evidence to prove that these things happened, I remembered an oral-history interview my sister once did with our grandfather to share with our family at his 97th-birthday party, in which he described his own grandparents' decision to leave their town in Ukraine after an aunt was attacked during a pogrom. "They raided her, et cetera, et cetera," my sister's notes from the interview say. Et cetera, et cetera, I thought over and over, as I hunted down sources on gang rapes of Jewish women to submit to the fact-checker, my vision going blurry. At the time, I hadn't wondered what those sanitized et ceteras meant.
The same week I spent emailing documentation to the fact-checker of pogroms long past, the newspaper, like many other news outlets, published a banner headline about Israelis bombing a hospital in Gaza and killing 500 people inside. This was quickly proven to be a lie told by Hamas—a lie similar to the medieval blood libel, about Jews deliberately targeting and murdering innocent non-Jewish babies—and a transparent psychological projection of the crimes that Hamas had actually committed in Israel, where Hamas terrorists had deliberately targeted and murdered hundreds of adults, children, and babies, and also repeatedly fired rockets at a hospital. Israel's military has indeed killed many innocent people in Gaza during its war to destroy Hamas, and deserves the same scrutiny as any country for its conduct in war. But scrutiny is impossible when lies are substituted for facts. The newspaper later issued a regretful editorial note acknowledging its error. Unfortunately, Hamas's lie had already inspired mass demonstrations around the world; rioters in Tunisia were so incensed by it that they burned a historic synagogue to the ground. I had been rightfully asked to prove that the Iraqi and Ukrainian pogroms happened. But the spokespeople for Hamas were taken at their word.
Shortly after the op-ed was published, I was invited to watch video footage of the October 7 attacks that the Israeli army had compiled from security cameras, online videos, and Hamas terrorists' GoPro cameras. This grim footage was assembled specifically for the purpose of fighting back against denial. But even this horrifying and humiliating evidence, documented largely by the perpetrators themselves, apparently isn't enough to prove that Jewish experiences are real. At a screening of the footage in Los Angeles, someone in the audience shouted, "Show the rapes!"
The attackers themselves provided footage of a woman's naked, mutilated corpse and of a teenager with blood-soaked pants being dragged by her hair out of a truck. Since then, it has become clear that Hamas used rape and sexual torture systematically against Israeli women. Israeli first responders and forensic scientists have found corpses of women and girls with vaginal bleeding and broken pelvises. Teenage sisters were found murdered in their bedroom, one shot in the head with her pants pulled down, covered in semen; one woman was found with nails and other objects in her genitalia, while others were found to have been shot through their vaginas. Eyewitness testimony has included details about a woman who was passed among many men, murdered while one of them was still raping her; at one point, her severed breast was tossed in the air. It's a detail familiar from the 1941 Baghdad pogrom, just as slicing a fetus out of a pregnant Jewish woman's body is a tactic Hamas unknowingly replicated from the Khmelnytskyi pogroms of 1648 Ukraine. Et cetera, et cetera. But who would believe it? "Show the rapes!"
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2024, 11:56:17 AMQuote from: Josquius on February 17, 2024, 11:22:38 AMThe issue here isn't annexing Israeli land back to Palestine.
It's Israel denying Palestine freedom within its own borders and eroding what land is Palestinian ever more.
It's as if the Germans had their east taken but then had to spend the next 80 years with the Polish army enforcing whatever laws they wanted, denying Germany the ability to be anything like an independent country and Polish fascists regularly seizing German farms to build new towns for Poles.
Hamas and Co suck.
But it's perfectly understandable why they're so appealing to many angry young men. Israels hands are far from clean.
Yeah, the Palestinians want the whole enchilada. Polls are pretty clear on that. The River to the Sea. Hamas and Co represent the mainstream of Palestinian politics.
Germany only renounced it's claims to its east in 1990.
Do we think they'd have come to that if the complete analogous situation I'd outlined with Poland was in effect?
And that's not even considering Germany lost a much smaller percentage of its land than the Palestinians and had a hell of a lot left.
If Germany pressed it's claims on the east it would have gotten the shit kicked out of it. There is a reason why they made peace. You situation isn't analogous. For it to be analogous Germany wouldn't have ever made peace they would have just continued fighting after 1945. And yeah, in that situation they would have lost more territory. And frankly the Soviets would probably have exterminated them. Or at least the Germans in their sector. Some times you need to throw in the towel.
That the Germans are the only ones to genocide the Jews is a result of them being the only ones that had the opportunity and the will. Without a doubt we'd see them all killed or enslaved, October 7th style, by their Arab neighbours if they magically laid down their arms and dissolved Israel.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2024, 01:00:03 PMIf Germany pressed it's claims on the east it would have gotten the shit kicked out of it. There is a reason why they made peace. You situation isn't analogous. For it to be analogous Germany wouldn't have ever made peace they would have just continued fighting after 1945. And yeah, in that situation they would have lost more territory. And frankly the Soviets would probably have exterminated them. Or at least the Germans in their sector. Some times you need to throw in the towel.
You're the one who made this analogy :lol:
And the Palestinians aren't getting the shit kicked out of them routinely?
The Palestinian leadership just unilaterally renouncing their claims on the whole of Palestine would be a stupid thing to do. This would need to be done in exchange for something.
Again you really don't seem to understand the situation beyond a fox news outline.
I don't watch Fox. I'm a leftist, remember? That's why I don't side with Palestinian Fascists.
Quote from: Threviel on February 17, 2024, 01:55:10 PMThat the Germans are the only ones to genocide the Jews is a result of them being the only ones that had the opportunity and the will. Without a doubt we'd see them all killed or enslaved, October 7th style, by their Arab neighbours if they magically laid down their arms and dissolved Israel.
Exactly. October 7th should've shown to everyone what awaits the Jews if they even for a moment lose the ability to defend themselves militarily. Thankfully they only lost the ability to defend themselves on a small part of Israel for a short period of time this time, but next time can be different.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2024, 11:51:18 AMThe Arabs were pretty clear that they wanted to drive the Jews into the sea.
How did they make it clear to you? Al of the opinion polling I see from the Arab world shows strong support for a two-state solution. Which Arabs talked to you and claimed to be representing "the Arabs?"
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2024, 11:56:17 AMYeah, the Palestinians want the whole enchilada. Polls are pretty clear on that. The River to the Sea. Hamas and Co represent the mainstream of Palestinian politics.
I don't know why you persist in clinging to this falsehood when it has been thoroughly demolished, even in this thread. Polls are pretty clear that the Palestinians want a two-state solution (though the attractiveness of that has declined steadily in the face of the rise of the Israeli far-right takeover of Israeli politics) and that Hamas and its tactics are not acceptable to the vast majority of Palestinians. (see Question 6 here (https://www.jmcc.org/documents/Jmcc99En6.pdf) for example).
Making up current events in the Middle East is as bad as your making up of the history.
Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2024, 03:17:40 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2024, 11:56:17 AMYeah, the Palestinians want the whole enchilada. Polls are pretty clear on that. The River to the Sea. Hamas and Co represent the mainstream of Palestinian politics.
I don't know why you persist in clinging to this falsehood when it has been thoroughly demolished, even in this thread. Polls are pretty clear that the Palestinians want a two-state solution (though the attractiveness of that has declined steadily in the face of the rise of the Israeli far-right takeover of Israeli politics) and that Hamas and its tactics are not acceptable to the vast majority of Palestinians. (see Question 6 here (https://www.jmcc.org/documents/Jmcc99En6.pdf) for example).
Making up current events in the Middle East is as bad as your making up of the history.
Your poll showed that 26 percent of them wanted a two state solution. So you lied. Good bye
Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2024, 11:18:06 AMQuote from: Razgovory on February 16, 2024, 10:49:32 PMIf Israel relinquished territory the attacks would still happen. The Hamas charter says so. In fact the Palestinians would have much, much more territory if they simply didn't try to genocide the Jews in the first place. And then keep trying it for 80 years. But that's racial hatred for you. Maybe one day they will realize that shooting rockets at people on results in getting their shit wrecked.
The Hamas charter also says that Jews are to be perfectly safe and content in an Islamic Palestine. You should go back to your history books if you think that the Palestinians were the ones who "tried] to genocide the Jews in the first place." Adolph Hitler was not Palestinians nor were the death camps run by Palestinians. You'll find out, with very little research, that it was Nazis that tried to "genocide the Jews." And no one has been trying to "genocide the Jews" for "80 years."
You cannot learn from history if the history you cite is just one made up by yourself on the fly.
Hamas is a criminal organization that should be wiped from the face of the earth... but not at any cost.
I'm not sure the jews want to be "Khaybar"-safe under muslims though.
It didn't work out for the Jews under Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Jordan, Algeria, Tunisia etc, etc.
Quote from: DGuller on February 17, 2024, 02:25:34 PMQuote from: Threviel on February 17, 2024, 01:55:10 PMThat the Germans are the only ones to genocide the Jews is a result of them being the only ones that had the opportunity and the will. Without a doubt we'd see them all killed or enslaved, October 7th style, by their Arab neighbours if they magically laid down their arms and dissolved Israel.
Exactly. October 7th should've shown to everyone what awaits the Jews if they even for a moment lose the ability to defend themselves militarily. Thankfully they only lost the ability to defend themselves on a small part of Israel for a short period of time this time, but next time can be different.
Anyone who believes that the leopard changed his spots and Hamas is now about "social justice" as stated in their new charter is delusional.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2024, 03:56:37 PMYour poll showed that 26 percent of them wanted a two state solution. So you lied. Good bye
What are you, twelve years old? I observed that historically, Palestinians preferred the two-state solution as, for instance, this graph of historical polls (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/graph-of-gallup-polls-on-palestinian-statehood) shows. I made no claims about the current figures, though noted that they had declined, relatively speaking, as the Israeli far right became more and more Israel's governing group.
You, however, did make claims about the current situation: "Yeah, the Palestinians want the whole enchilada. Polls are pretty clear on that." The very poll that you falsely used to accuse me of lying has the "polls are very clear" numbers on those wanting a Palestinian-only state ("the whole enchilada"): 23% So you were definitely and unarguably lying about that.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 17, 2024, 04:00:47 PMI'm not sure the jews want to be "Khaybar"-safe under muslims though.
I am quite sure that they do not. The issue in the Israeli-Palestine conflict, though, isn't whether Jews should be allowed a state, but rather, whether Palestinians should be allowed on. It's patently obvious that Palestinians are not safe under Israeli colonial rule.
I see that there's reporting Israel doesn't really believe the Hamas political leaders they are "negotiating" various ceasefire proposals with in Qatar actually have any meaningful contact with the remaining Hamas military forces in Gaza, Isaac Herzog has suggested the Hamas elements in Qatar may be negotiating terms they can't actually deliver on.
Looks like Bibi has finally released his "after the war" plan for Gaza:
Quote- Freedom of Activity by the IDF within the Gaza Strip.
- The Complete Disarmament and Demobilization of the Gaza Strip.
- Total Security Control by Israel over the West Bank.
- Partial/Total Closure of the Border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt.
- Establishment of a Security Zone between Southern Israel and the Gaza Strip.
- Creation of a De-Radicalization Program which will be implemented in all Palestinian Institutions.
- Removal of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency from the Palestinian Territories.
- The Rehabilitation of the Gaza Strip once Demilitarization is Complete and De-Radicalization has begun, with Funding only coming from Israeli-Approved Countries and Organizations.
My guess is the vast majority of these will not come to pass for a mixture of practical, political and diplomatic reasons--but I strongly suspect the IDF having some form of permanent military presence in Gaza is 100% the reality, and basically a
fait accompli already. I don't see any version of domestic politics in Israel's near future that would sign off on the IDF agreeing to leave and stay out of the strip again, not after October 7th. That is likely true in spite of all the Eurocrying and South African tears in the world.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 23, 2024, 03:29:13 PMLooks like Bibi has finally released his "after the war" plan for Gaza:
Quote- Freedom of Activity by the IDF within the Gaza Strip.
- The Complete Disarmament and Demobilization of the Gaza Strip.
- Total Security Control by Israel over the West Bank.
- Partial/Total Closure of the Border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt.
- Establishment of a Security Zone between Southern Israel and the Gaza Strip.
- Creation of a De-Radicalization Program which will be implemented in all Palestinian Institutions.
- Removal of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency from the Palestinian Territories.
- The Rehabilitation of the Gaza Strip once Demilitarization is Complete and De-Radicalization has begun, with Funding only coming from Israeli-Approved Countries and Organizations.
My guess is the vast majority of these will not come to pass for a mixture of practical, political and diplomatic reasons--but I strongly suspect the IDF having some form of permanent military presence in Gaza is 100% the reality, and basically a fait accompli already. I don't see any version of domestic politics in Israel's near future that would sign off on the IDF agreeing to leave and stay out of the strip again, not after October 7th. That is likely true in spite of all the Eurocrying and South African tears in the world.
Okay, I hate to use the word, but...
that does sound like apartheid.
If they want to be responsible for the Palestinians well they need to accountable to the Palestinians. They should grant them all citizenship at the end of that "de-radicalization" program. One state solution.
But they won't do that and don't want a two state solution either.
So yeah...that sounds like apartheid.
I find the comparisons to apartheid to be simplistic and unhelpful, it is generally better to just go after Israeli negative behavior as Israeli negative behavior. Trying to squeeze into South Africa's apartheid example because that was a "big word" in the 80s and 90s doesn't IMO make a ton of sense.
There are serious concerns about Jewish supremacism, undermining of Israel's democracy, treatment of non-Jews under many policies / ideas promoted by the Israeli far-right, but they don't easily compare to apartheid--which was a system distinct to South Africa and tied into race. Jewish supremacism in Israel is not tied to race at all (in fact most Israeli Jews are functionally the same race as the Palestinians).
There's also a lot of international law issues at play in Israel/Palestine that were distinct from what went on in South Africa (one of the biggest is actual international boundaries for Palestine have never been accepted, they were proposed in 1947 but not ratified by anyone involved, Gaza and the West Bank, and to some degree even Israel, exist in a sort of perpetual unsettled gray area.)
In fact a big difference from apartheid and Israel-Palestine is there is still a perpetual war going on between these two entities (or between the one entity of Israel and the quasi-entity of Palestine), that wasn't a condition of the apartheid regime, excepting relatively mild black insurgency movements that were usually easily suppressed by the white ruling government.
Another significant factor is the "Palestinians" are just Arabs who are culturally homogenous with Arabs in the immediate regions of bordering Arab countries, and who have at times even been part of those countries (and in fact some are permanently), the Israel-Palestine dispute is much more a case of "this group really wants certain specific land they lost through bad wars they started, so they are squatting as refugees forever instead of engaging in any form of political settlement." There's not really any comparable history with apartheid.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 23, 2024, 04:25:13 PMI find the comparisons to apartheid to be simplistic and unhelpful, it is generally better to just go after Israeli negative behavior as Israeli negative behavior. Trying to squeeze into South Africa's apartheid example because that was a "big word" in the 80s and 90s doesn't IMO make a ton of sense.
There are serious concerns about Jewish supremacism, undermining of Israel's democracy, treatment of non-Jews under many policies / ideas promoted by the Israeli far-right, but they don't easily compare to apartheid--which was a system distinct to South Africa and tied into race. Jewish supremacism in Israel is not tied to race at all (in fact most Israeli Jews are functionally the same race as the Palestinians).
There's also a lot of international law issues at play in Israel/Palestine that were distinct from what went on in South Africa (one of the biggest is actual international boundaries for Palestine have never been accepted, they were proposed in 1947 but not ratified by anyone involved, Gaza and the West Bank, and to some degree even Israel, exist in a sort of perpetual unsettled gray area.)
Another significant factor is the "Palestinians" are just Arabs who are culturally homogenous with Arabs in the immediate regions of bordering Arab countries, and who have at times even been part of those countries (and in fact some are permanently), the Israel-Palestine dispute is much more a case of "this group really wants certain specific land they lost through bad wars they started, so they are squatting as refugees forever instead of engaging in any form of political settlement." There's not really any comparable history with apartheid.
Otto, I've resisted that term for Israel for decades. And who knows - maybe tomorrow I'll disagree with it's usage again.
But the idea of permanent security control over WB/Gaza by Israel, with no political rights for the inhabitants, is strongly reminiscent of apartheid.
Sounds like occupation.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 23, 2024, 04:47:28 PMSounds like occupation.
And I mean that's going to need to be the short-term solution to Gaza. And the US occupied Japan for several years, as well as part of West Germany.
But it was never at all contemplated to be a permanent solution.
(my sentence structure sucks - start two sentences with "and", and the other with "but") :bash:
How sinister that plan is depends largely by what they mean by deradicalisation? Broad rights given to themselves to arrest people? China-style camps like for the uighurs? The latter of course would send the world into a frenzy unlike the Chinese one were nobody cares.
Yeah, it would be a military occupation. Has literally been Gaza's condition since 1947–including the 20 years Egypt occupied it but didn't count Gazans as Egyptian citizens (they even issued them special passports that made clear they weren't Egyptian.)
A military occupation is generally not a positive thing, but not IMO the same thing as apartheid. Apartheid wasn't part of an ongoing military conflict over control of land.
Things can be called bad without saying they are the same as other bad things.
Quote from: Tamas on February 23, 2024, 05:10:45 PMHow sinister that plan is depends largely by what they mean by deradicalisation? Broad rights given to themselves to arrest people? China-style camps like for the uighurs? The latter of course would send the world into a frenzy unlike the Chinese one were nobody cares.
at the very least it'll probably mean the children will get better, maybe even decent, educational materials instead of the antisemitic tripe Hamas was feeding them.
Not that it'll help though.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 23, 2024, 04:25:13 PMland they lost through bad wars they started
How did they start the war?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 23, 2024, 06:20:58 PMmaybe even decent, educational materials
Imported from Russia?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 23, 2024, 04:47:28 PMSounds like occupation.
At what point does an occupation becomes colonization? When you remove people to put your own, is that still an occupation? When you destroy people's home to build you own settlement is that an occupation?
What is an occupation, what is an invasion? What is an annexation? Did Germany annex France in WWII or did it occupy the country? Should Churchill have shake the hand of Germany's leader and congratulate him on pacifying this troublesome country filled of dissidents posing a danger to his country? Two wars in less than 30 years apart? Clearly, Germany felt threatened by such an aggressive neighbour. They declared war and lost. Too bad for them. England should just have ditched them, instead of fighting in the air, on the beaches, etc.
Quote from: viper37 on February 23, 2024, 10:40:07 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 23, 2024, 04:47:28 PMSounds like occupation.
At what point does an occupation becomes colonization? When you remove people to put your own, is that still an occupation? When you destroy people's home to build you own settlement is that an occupation?
What is an occupation, what is an invasion? What is an annexation? Did Germany annex France in WWII or did it occupy the country? Should Churchill have shake the hand of Germany's leader and congratulate him on pacifying this troublesome country filled of dissidents posing a danger to his country? Two wars in less than 30 years apart? Clearly, Germany felt threatened by such an aggressive neighbour. They declared war and lost. Too bad for them. England should just have ditched them, instead of fighting in the air, on the beaches, etc.
Germany didn't annex France in WW2 because no peace treaty was signed. If you paid attention in history class you would know that. I remind you that you live on stolen land. Are you as interested in decolonizing Turtle Island as you decolonizing Israel?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 23, 2024, 04:25:13 PMI find the comparisons to apartheid to be simplistic and unhelpful, it is generally better to just go after Israeli negative behavior as Israeli negative behavior. Trying to squeeze into South Africa's apartheid example because that was a "big word" in the 80s and 90s doesn't IMO make a ton of sense.
Many have tossed around the term apartheid for years. And I've often disagreed with it with regards to Gaza and the wall- the treatment of the Israeli Arabs which never really gets a mention would be a closer analogy there.
But in this theoretical it absolutely would be an apartheid style situation with Gaza.
QuoteThere are serious concerns about Jewish supremacism, undermining of Israel's democracy, treatment of non-Jews under many policies / ideas promoted by the Israeli far-right, but they don't easily compare to apartheid--which was a system distinct to South Africa and tied into race. Jewish supremacism in Israel is not tied to race at all (in fact most Israeli Jews are functionally the same race as the Palestinians).
Thats a weird flip. Isn't it at the core of zionism and the general arguments of pro Israeli folks that Jews are a race?
QuoteThere's also a lot of international law issues at play in Israel/Palestine that were distinct from what went on in South Africa (one of the biggest is actual international boundaries for Palestine have never been accepted, they were proposed in 1947 but not ratified by anyone involved, Gaza and the West Bank, and to some degree even Israel, exist in a sort of perpetual unsettled gray area.)
South Africa had unrecognised borders too - Namibia.
Not to mention in the context of apartheid the very relevant Bantustans.
QuoteAnother significant factor is the "Palestinians" are just Arabs who are culturally homogenous with Arabs in the immediate regions of bordering Arab countries, and who have at times even been part of those countries (and in fact some are permanently), the Israel-Palestine dispute is much more a case of "this group really wants certain specific land they lost through bad wars they started, so they are squatting as refugees forever instead of engaging in any form of political settlement." There's not really any comparable history with apartheid.
Honestly this sounds like something the Apartheid government might have said.
"The blacks in south Africa are just bantus. An extension of the bantus with all those other countries in Africa. Why they're just immigrants here too."
Of course there's a lot of similarity across Arabs. But this doesn't make any subgroup somehow irrelevant.
And pretty sure the Palestinians do want a settlement with it being the Israeli right who are content with the current (pre October) situation and slowly further weakening the Palestinian situation?
Quote from: viper37 on February 23, 2024, 10:40:07 PMAt what point does an occupation becomes colonization? When you remove people to put your own, is that still an occupation? When you destroy people's home to build you own settlement is that an occupation?
A lot of times the answer is "it doesn't matter", colonization is heavily abused as a political term. It makes more sense to hit at the core issues at hand without using labels as cudgels.
It takes slightly more work but is a better framework for discussion. It isn't incredibly difficult to say things like "the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is not morally justifiable, and exacerbates a number of regional tensions" or to differentiate it from say, the Allied occupation of Germany post-WWII, which virtually no one takes moral issue with. It isn't crazy hard to just recognize the ways in which a thing are objectionable.
Quote from: Josquius on February 24, 2024, 03:16:38 AMThats a weird flip. Isn't it at the core of zionism and the general arguments of pro Israeli folks that Jews are a race?
No. Jews are a "people" is how I often see them describe themselves. Even the most hardcore Orthodox Jew doesn't think all Jews belong to the same race.
More conservative Jews do try to deny genetic similarity with the Arab population, but pretty basic science has shown there is a lot of intermixing that has occurred over the millennia. And also just like the primary way to easily distinguish an Israeli Jew from an Israeli Arab is
how they are dressed, that isn't something you can say about say, black people in America.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 24, 2024, 10:37:46 AMQuote from: Josquius on February 24, 2024, 03:16:38 AMThats a weird flip. Isn't it at the core of zionism and the general arguments of pro Israeli folks that Jews are a race?
No. Jews are a "people" is how I often see them describe themselves. Even the most hardcore Orthodox Jew doesn't think all Jews belong to the same race.
More conservative Jews do try to deny genetic similarity with the Arab population, but pretty basic science has shown there is a lot of intermixing that has occurred over the millennia. And also just like the primary way to easily distinguish an Israeli Jew from an Israeli Arab is how they are dressed, that isn't something you can say about say, black people in America.
The idea of Zionism is that all Jews collectively formed a nation (not a race). You are correct that the concept is not based on genetics. Exactly what it
is based on is a matter of some dispute, even among the Jews themselves.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 24, 2024, 10:36:32 AMQuote from: viper37 on February 23, 2024, 10:40:07 PMAt what point does an occupation becomes colonization? When you remove people to put your own, is that still an occupation? When you destroy people's home to build you own settlement is that an occupation?
A lot of times the answer is "it doesn't matter", colonization is heavily abused as a political term. It makes more sense to hit at the core issues at hand without using labels as cudgels.
It takes slightly more work but is a better framework for discussion. It isn't incredibly difficult to say things like "the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is not morally justifiable, and exacerbates a number of regional tensions" or to differentiate it from say, the Allied occupation of Germany post-WWII, which virtually no one takes moral issue with. It isn't crazy hard to just recognize the ways in which a thing are objectionable.
Did the US, England and France intend to displace Germans to put their own citizens in place?
Did France occupy the Ruhr valley with the intention of setting up there their own business and using cheap German labor? Did Denmark constantly move its border south?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 23, 2024, 10:59:54 PMQuote from: viper37 on February 23, 2024, 10:40:07 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 23, 2024, 04:47:28 PMSounds like occupation.
At what point does an occupation becomes colonization? When you remove people to put your own, is that still an occupation? When you destroy people's home to build you own settlement is that an occupation?
What is an occupation, what is an invasion? What is an annexation? Did Germany annex France in WWII or did it occupy the country? Should Churchill have shake the hand of Germany's leader and congratulate him on pacifying this troublesome country filled of dissidents posing a danger to his country? Two wars in less than 30 years apart? Clearly, Germany felt threatened by such an aggressive neighbour. They declared war and lost. Too bad for them. England should just have ditched them, instead of fighting in the air, on the beaches, etc.
Germany didn't annex France in WW2 because no peace treaty was signed. If you paid attention in history class you would know that. I remind you that you live on stolen land. Are you as interested in decolonizing Turtle Island as you decolonizing Israel?
Turtle Island belong to the Huron. The Iroquois Six Nations conquered them with assistance from the British who gave them guns.
If the modern representatives of the Iroquois league are interested in discussing reparations to the Hurons and all the other tribes they conquered and cheated out of their lands to the British, I'm all listening.
And Palestine belonged to the Ottomans, who took it from the Mamluks, who took from the Ayyubids, who took from the Crusaders, etc etc
Keep going and the Jews will have to pay reparations to themselves
Quote from: viper37 on February 24, 2024, 08:57:52 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 23, 2024, 10:59:54 PMQuote from: viper37 on February 23, 2024, 10:40:07 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 23, 2024, 04:47:28 PMSounds like occupation.
At what point does an occupation becomes colonization? When you remove people to put your own, is that still an occupation? When you destroy people's home to build you own settlement is that an occupation?
What is an occupation, what is an invasion? What is an annexation? Did Germany annex France in WWII or did it occupy the country? Should Churchill have shake the hand of Germany's leader and congratulate him on pacifying this troublesome country filled of dissidents posing a danger to his country? Two wars in less than 30 years apart? Clearly, Germany felt threatened by such an aggressive neighbour. They declared war and lost. Too bad for them. England should just have ditched them, instead of fighting in the air, on the beaches, etc.
Germany didn't annex France in WW2 because no peace treaty was signed. If you paid attention in history class you would know that. I remind you that you live on stolen land. Are you as interested in decolonizing Turtle Island as you decolonizing Israel?
Turtle Island belong to the Huron. The Iroquois Six Nations conquered them with assistance from the British who gave them guns.
If the modern representatives of the Iroquois league are interested in discussing reparations to the Hurons and all the other tribes they conquered and cheated out of their lands to the British, I'm all listening.
Oh, no. What they mean when they say "Turtle Island" is the whole of North America. Do you wish to decolonize North America?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 24, 2024, 10:23:38 PMQuote from: viper37 on February 24, 2024, 08:57:52 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 23, 2024, 10:59:54 PMQuote from: viper37 on February 23, 2024, 10:40:07 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 23, 2024, 04:47:28 PMSounds like occupation.
At what point does an occupation becomes colonization? When you remove people to put your own, is that still an occupation? When you destroy people's home to build you own settlement is that an occupation?
What is an occupation, what is an invasion? What is an annexation? Did Germany annex France in WWII or did it occupy the country? Should Churchill have shake the hand of Germany's leader and congratulate him on pacifying this troublesome country filled of dissidents posing a danger to his country? Two wars in less than 30 years apart? Clearly, Germany felt threatened by such an aggressive neighbour. They declared war and lost. Too bad for them. England should just have ditched them, instead of fighting in the air, on the beaches, etc.
Germany didn't annex France in WW2 because no peace treaty was signed. If you paid attention in history class you would know that. I remind you that you live on stolen land. Are you as interested in decolonizing Turtle Island as you decolonizing Israel?
Turtle Island belong to the Huron. The Iroquois Six Nations conquered them with assistance from the British who gave them guns.
If the modern representatives of the Iroquois league are interested in discussing reparations to the Hurons and all the other tribes they conquered and cheated out of their lands to the British, I'm all listening.
Oh, no. What they mean when they say "Turtle Island" is the whole of North America. Do you wish to decolonize North America?
They mean the place the Huron occupied on lake Huron. They are pretty clear on that, they were give 10 000 square miles of Ontario, reduced to 1000 square miles of Ontario (Upper Canada) by then Governor General John Simcoe. If they want to ask Ford for more lands, they can. Otherwise, they can re-negotiate with they US with the US where their lands were orignially situatued. France gave them lands after the Catholics ones were expelled. The Protestants ones came after your country was formed and you expelled them, even those who fought on your side.
If the successor to the
Wait wait. Are we trying to argue here that the native Americans had it coming and don't deserve any rights in the modern day?
Quote from: Josquius on February 25, 2024, 03:10:09 AMWait wait. Are we trying to argue here that the native Americans had it coming and don't deserve any rights in the modern day?
No, I'm pointing out that viper lives on stolen land and that his fellow Palestinian activists want to decolonize it. Viper is kinda dodging the question. I think he believes himself to be "Indigenous", when clearly he is not.
The Curious Rise of Settler Colonialism and Turtle IslandThe problem with shoehorning a Middle Eastern war—or American history—into a trendy academic theory
QuoteRecently, I stood on a windswept street corner in Brooklyn and watched a river of pro-Palestinian protesters move past, as police officers tracked their path. A number of demonstrators had heads swathed in kaffiyehs, and some wore face-obscuring black masks. They waved Palestinian flags and placards denouncing Israel in many different ways.
defund the settler-colonialist state demanded one. Another stated land back!, echoing the Native American movement to reclaim lost territory in the United States.
Two women held tight to a decolonization from turtle island to palestine banner as a gust tugged at it. Turtle Island alludes to the creation story of the Lenape tribe of the Northeast, and some academics and Native activists treat it as a de facto Indigenous name for the settler-colonialist U.S.
Settler colonialism—academic jargon for the violent process by which colonial empires empower settlers to push out and oppress Indigenous inhabitants and form a dominant new society—is a term much in vogue among activists and academics on the left. To talk of settler states and oppressed Indigenous people, and claim an umbilical connection between Palestinian struggles and those of Native Americans, is to construct a morality tale stripped of subtleties—a matter not of politics, but of sin.
Xochitl Gonzalez: That's not censorship
Israel, in this view, is not a flawed and contentious democracy engaged in a war with an enemy that vows to destroy it. It is a settler-colonialist state built upon the oppression and exploitation of Indigenous Palestinians. A left-wing kibbutznik who lives a few miles from Gaza and drives sick Palestinians to Israeli hospitals is no less a colonialist than a right-wing theocratic settler who brandishes an automatic rifle and insists on the annexation of stolen lands on the West Bank.
The Brooklyn protesters chanted: "We don't want no two states! We want '48!" This was a radical cry to rewind 1948, the year of Israel's founding. The yearning was to dissolve Israel so that the Palestinians might inherit the land, as the slogan goes, from the river to the sea.
Language is ever contested in wartime. Israeli officials are assiduous in referring to Hamas leaders and fighters as terrorists. That description is rigorously accurate, given the horror that Hamas perpetrated on October 7, even as the application of the term can make it too easy to rationalize the vengeance and death that have fallen on a far broader number of Palestinians.
Many supporters of the Palestinian cause insist on using the terms settler colonialism and Indigenous, the better to render Israel and Israelis as an oppressive other. To assail a colony of outsiders with an "imagined" connection to Palestine, as some left-wing scholars put it, makes it all too easy to brush aside the practicalities of coexistence with an Israel that is now 75 years old and has about 9 million citizens, including about 2 million Arabs.
Settlers, the theory goes, are mere pawns of imperial patrons, and impermanence is implied. Settlers can be uprooted, sojourns violently terminated. What matters is that Indigenous people reclaim their rightful inheritance.
The Australian historian and anthropologist Patrick Wolfe, who died in 2016, is widely seen as one of the intellectual founders of settler-colonialism theory. This form of colonialism, he wrote, is premised on "the elimination of the native" through genocide and coercive policies that turn survivors into "white people." This process, Wolfe explained in a 2012 interview at Stanford University, is a "'winner take all,' zero-sum game whereby outsiders come to a country and seek to take it away from the people who already live there, remove them, replace them."
Peter Wehner: Biden is all that's holding back the left
Any reasonable measure of European colonial empires and the westward trail of American settlers can locate exploitation, racism, and bloody conquest. Wolfe's theories resonate deeply in left-wing corners of academia. Prominent American universities from UCLA to Yale offer courses in settler colonialism; British universities have research centers devoted to it; papers in journals debate its finer points and expand the discussion to include the subjugation of native people as a laboring class. Many divine in settler-colonialism theory a global explanatory power, applying it not only to the U.S. and Wolfe's native Australia—where Europeans dominated and marginalized the Aboriginal population—but to Indonesians in West Papua, Indians in Kashmir, and Moroccans in Western Sahara.
Wolfe and many of his fellow theorists tossed down a final desultory intellectual move. Surveying a worldwide tapestry of colonial oppressions and conquests, they insisted that a single nation offered the sharpest and most troubling example of settler colonialism: Israel. Never mind that Australia and the U.S. are both hundreds of times larger. Wolfe wrote that Israel was unique for its Jewish founders' deceptive ideological sleights of hand, their "self-hatred," and the denial of its oppression and "extirpation" of the Arabs. "Zionism rigorously refused, as it continues to refuse, any suggestion of Native assimilation," Wolfe wrote. "Zionism," Wolfe insisted, "constitutes a more exclusive exercise of the settler logic of elimination than we encounter in the Australian and U.S. examples." To single out the Jewish state in this way is to echo ancient and ugly tropes.
The prospect that "Indigenous people" might drive out the Israeli settler colonialists strikes settler-colonialism theorists as just and inescapably stirring. "Israel is a stolen land, and that's what the Zionists don't want to think about or accept," the UCLA history professor Kyle T. Mays, an Afro-Indigenous scholar and a member of the Saginaw Chippewa tribe, told me. He said he does not personally condone violence. But he added, "Until that land is returned to Palestinians, you will continue to feel the violence that they experience."
The notion that Indigenous violence is inevitable, even liberatory, has gained chilling traction on the American left. "One could (and should) very well argue that in a settler colonial context, there are not such things as civilians," the Palestine-issues committee of the Democratic Socialists of America wrote in June on X (formerly Twitter). "It's total folly to compare settlers perpetrating pogroms to resistance groups deploying violence to liberate themselves."
More assumptions flow from this conceptual fountainhead. If Israel is a violent settler colony, to propose a two-state solution would enshrine injustice. Even a rump Israeli state would rest on stolen land. "What do you want the Palestinians to do? It's not like they'll say, 'We'll split our land 50–50,'" Mays told me. "Condemning people for violently resisting oppression makes no sense."
Just by way of concentrating the mind, let's remember the specific nature of the violent resistance practiced by Hamas, whose fighters began the morning of October 7 by breaking a cease-fire with Israel and ended by killing children, raping women, and slaughtering parents in front of their children. Decolonization turns out not to be metaphorical.
I put the question of settler colonialism to Roger Berkowitz, the academic director of the Hannah Arendt Center at Bard College. He said he is taken aback both by the speed with which the ideological construct of settler colonialism has entered the global discourse and by how intently people who espouse the theory focus on Israel. Berkowitz was careful to say he does not see them all as anti-Semites, although the word anti-Semitism does keep leaping to his mind.
In invocations of settler colonialism, Berkowitz hears progressives giving up on effecting change through political means. "The left has replaced its faith in proletarian subjects and utopian solutions with a view of the Indigenous as innocent and oppressed. It's an ethics rather than a politics."
In the late 1960s and early '70s, prominent radical American Indian activists saw in Israel a symbol of an Indigenous people regaining their land and reviving their language. Since then, however, many Native American activists came to strongly embrace the Palestinian cause alongside anticolonial struggles in Algeria, Ireland, and South Africa. If their "Indigenous cousins" can liberate Palestine, the underlying logic suggests, so Indigenous Americans might set free Turtle Island tomorrow.
"We want U.S. out of everywhere. We want U.S. out of Palestine. We want U.S. out of Turtle Island," the University of Minnesota professor Melanie Yazzie, who is Navajo, said at "From Minnesota to Palestine," a panel in December sponsored by Red Nation, whose politics run sharply left. "The goal is to dismantle the settler project that is the United States."
To talk of dismantling an American settler state of 330 million people is to take a rhetorical flight of fancy. It is less a program than a millenarian dream––a "prophecy," as Nick Estes, a University of Minnesota historian who is a member of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and a co-founder of Red Nation, has written. Unlike Hamas leaders who explicitly and repeatedly call for Israel's violent elimination, Native activists and academics say they have in mind not a bloody Indigenous uprising but a socialist revolution against liberalism and capitalism, to demolish national borders and police forces, and upend a racist system that, in Estes's words, seeks "to kill us off, confine us to sub-marginal plots of land, breed us white." This might occur in concert with sympathetic descendants of settlers. As Estes told me: "I can imagine a world where we can live together in a common project that does not require my people to be dominated."
Yair Rosenberg: The right-wing Israeli campaign to resettle Gaza
Morality tales offer poor stand-ins for politics, and discourage an honest engagement with history, which is often messy and fractured. The question of who is Indigenous in Israel and Palestine involves layers of complication. One of the holiest sites in Islam, the venerable al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, was built in the seventh and eighth century and sits atop the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism. The first temple was completed there in the 10th century B.C.E. and predates the foundation of Islam by 1,500 years.
In the modern era, Jewish refugees fled Europe during the rise of fascism in the 1930s and then with the hot breath of the Holocaust at their backs. Many potential havens, not least the United States and Australia, barred all but a relative handful of Jews. The British colonial territory known as Palestine loomed as a sanctuary. A smattering of Jews had lived there in villages—Indigenous settlements, in today's argot—continuously for millennia. At the same time, a much larger Arab majority had lived in Palestine for generations piled atop generations.
The writer and historian Sol Stern, who once was a man of the left and has moved rightward, told me he would not deny that early Zionists were colonial settlers. But he balks at any comparison with a British colonial living a raj lifestyle in India or a French pied noir settler running a farm in Algeria just a day's journey across the Mediterranean from metropolitan France. Jews fleeing death had few choices and nowhere to return. "You're on a burning ship, and so you jump and land on a raft," Stern said. Other people were displaced, he added, and they deserve consideration. "What do you do? You try to come to a settlement with them."
The events of 1948 offered yet more complications. Arabs and Jews exchanged slaughters. Many hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were left stateless even as Arab governments expelled many hundreds of thousands of Jews from homes across the Arab world. Today the Mizrahi Jews, as the Indigenous Jewish residents of the Middle East are known, comprise slightly more than half of Israel's population.
No one now holds a monopoly on pain. For a Palestinian family in 1948 to have lost a treasured family home, a farm, a business was a grievous wound. Nor can the horrors of October 7 justify the continuing Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the deadly vigilante violence with which Israeli settlers there enforce their writ. Yet the answer to injustice won't be found in slogans that wish away the existence of Israel or, for that matter, the United States.
The passage of time and much violence and cohabitation speaks only to the poverty of using loaded terms such as settler colonialism and Indigenous to locate moral certainty in the Israeli-Palestine dispute. A land of contention and suffering is not a promising place in which to claim such rhetorical clarity.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2024, 07:25:45 AMQuote from: Josquius on February 25, 2024, 03:10:09 AMWait wait. Are we trying to argue here that the native Americans had it coming and don't deserve any rights in the modern day?
No, I'm pointing out that viper lives on stolen land and that his fellow Palestinian activists want to decolonize it. Viper is kinda dodging the question. I think he believes himself to be "Indigenous", when clearly he is not.
[rical clarity.uote]
That sounds insane. I don't think anyone believes north America can be handed back to the natives.
The whole of Palestine going back to the Palestinians isn't quite on that level of lunacy, but it's up there. I don't think viper or really anyone sane in the west believes that's a remotely possible or desirable outcome.
However, though white people buggering off "back" to Europe from the americas just isn't happening, that doesn't mean we couldn't recognise the historic crimes and seek to make sure the natives get fair compensation for this.
Actually keeping some of the later treaties that gave them drastically stripped back holdings for instance. Or just financial compensation for illegally taken land. Or hell, just letting them have full and equal rights in the country where they live.
This is a lot more realistic an approach for Palestine.
Israel did steal vast swathes of Palestinian land.
This was now generations ago and the prospect of handing it all back is daft (though some, especially more recent seizures very definitely can and should be returned) .
However the crime was committed in living memory and compensation of some form is very possible - as is some level of rights for Palestinians across the whole of Palestine, even if you're into a strict 2 state solution.
Also it's worth remembering negotiating 101 - even amongst those who insist on Israel ceasing to exist and rewinding the clock. Most of this minority are idiots.
But many don't actually think this is possible... But it is what they see as their legal entitlement so it's the starting negotiating point. To demand any less would be to cede ground for zero return. Mutual recognition of each other's right to exist was a pretty core part of the Oslo accord.
Plenty of very sane people are demanding the One-State solution. Tyr, you need to come to grips that the far-left see that as a desirable outcome.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2024, 11:54:28 AMPlenty of very sane people are demanding the One-State solution. Tyr, you need to come to grips that the far-left see that as a desirable outcome.
One state solution. ! = genocide the other side.
No, what Viper is doing is arguing semantics about the term "Turtle Island".
Seems that Viper's argument is that the term is unique to the Huron, and is evaluating Minsky's throwaway line about "decolonizing Turtle island" in that light. Minsky - and others - are using Turtle Island to mean all of North America, which seems in line with what First Nations advocates themselves are doing these days.
Quote from: Josquius on February 25, 2024, 12:03:45 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2024, 11:54:28 AMPlenty of very sane people are demanding the One-State solution. Tyr, you need to come to grips that the far-left see that as a desirable outcome.
One state solution. ! = genocide the other side.
What do you think will happen to the Jews in a Palestinian controlled state?
Quote from: Jacob on February 25, 2024, 12:11:39 PMNo, what Viper is doing is arguing semantics about the term "Turtle Island".
Seems that Viper's argument is that the term is unique to the Huron, and is evaluating Minsky's throwaway line about "decolonizing Turtle island" in that light. Minsky - and others - are using Turtle Island to mean all of North America, which seems in line with what First Nations advocates themselves are doing these days.
I think that was Raz, not me.
I never heard of the phrase Turtle Island until reading the stuff posted here.
Quote from: Josquius on February 25, 2024, 12:03:45 PMOne state solution. ! = genocide the other side.
:lol:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 25, 2024, 01:14:00 PMQuote from: Jacob on February 25, 2024, 12:11:39 PMNo, what Viper is doing is arguing semantics about the term "Turtle Island".
Seems that Viper's argument is that the term is unique to the Huron, and is evaluating Minsky's throwaway line about "decolonizing Turtle island" in that light. Minsky - and others - are using Turtle Island to mean all of North America, which seems in line with what First Nations advocates themselves are doing these days.
I think that was Raz, not me.
I never heard of the phrase Turtle Island until reading the stuff posted here.
I've been reading a lot of stuff written by Palestinian supporters. It's a term I kept coming across. I suppose "decolonize North America" is the logical end point of fighting Settler-Colonialism. Anyway, it seems popular on college campuses.
My objection is to any narrative premised on dehumanization, whether the anti-Arab racism of the Israeli hard right or the new leftist anti-semitism masquerading as anti-colonialism.
Jewish settlement in Palestine was never a colonial project; they were never agents of some dominating imperial center.
The "indigenous" Jews of Palestine were justified in their desire to stay even if it mean resettling elsewhere in the country after the Arab progroms of the 20s and 30s. The Jews that legally bought land from the Ottomans and built homes and communities were justified in seeking a life in a land that they viewed as a long-lost ancestral homeland. The Jews that took advantage of the limited opportunities to immigrate to Palestine in the 30s while fleeing from persecution in Europe were also justified. The Jews that fled from persecution in Arab lands post 48 and sought refuge in the new state of Israel were also justified. And so were those who later fled persecution in the former Soviet Union.
The Arabs forced in their homes in 1947-48 and again in 67 were (and are) also justified in seeking a return to their former homes. And the West Bank Arabs are fully justified in fearing and even resisting the encroachment of illegal settlements that they understandably view as a prelude to an ultimate expulsion.
The key is to treat ALL people as human beings to be addressed in human terms, as opposed to mere instruments in a narrative demonology. That makes for a more difficult analysis, and for more complex and perhaps intractable solutions, and it's really hard to fit on a t-shirt or a placard. But on the plus side you are a lot less likely find yourself cheering for mass murder.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2024, 01:01:39 PMQuote from: Josquius on February 25, 2024, 12:03:45 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2024, 11:54:28 AMPlenty of very sane people are demanding the One-State solution. Tyr, you need to come to grips that the far-left see that as a desirable outcome.
One state solution. ! = genocide the other side.
What do you think will happen to the Jews in a Palestinian controlled state?
The whole point of a one state solution is that it isn't controlled by one side or the other.
And if Israel had agreed to this it's pretty unlikely it'd be with someone like Hamas in charge of the Palestinian side and Palestinian sentiment being aligned that way.
:lol: Oh, you were serious? :XD:
Quote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2024, 02:30:41 PM:lol: Oh, you were serious? :XD:
I know, you don't have a clue about this issue and I shouldn't respond to you seriously. But hey ho.
Quote from: viper37 on February 24, 2024, 08:50:14 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 24, 2024, 10:36:32 AMQuote from: viper37 on February 23, 2024, 10:40:07 PMAt what point does an occupation becomes colonization? When you remove people to put your own, is that still an occupation? When you destroy people's home to build you own settlement is that an occupation?
A lot of times the answer is "it doesn't matter", colonization is heavily abused as a political term. It makes more sense to hit at the core issues at hand without using labels as cudgels.
It takes slightly more work but is a better framework for discussion. It isn't incredibly difficult to say things like "the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is not morally justifiable, and exacerbates a number of regional tensions" or to differentiate it from say, the Allied occupation of Germany post-WWII, which virtually no one takes moral issue with. It isn't crazy hard to just recognize the ways in which a thing are objectionable.
Did the US, England and France intend to displace Germans to put their own citizens in place?
Did France occupy the Ruhr valley with the intention of setting up there their own business and using cheap German labor? Did Denmark constantly move its border south?
I see you're learning, albeit it slowly--as I said, on can note the ways in which a thing is bad, which you have done here.
You didn't even have to use the phrases "settler colonialism", "apartheid", or "genocide."
Dude, they were together in one state. It was a disaster. The Arabs massacred Jews, launched a rebellion aimed in part to keep the Jews out and the country fell into civil war and split. And no, the Palestinians aren't are going moderate because they are in a power sharing agreement. They didn't become more moderate when the Israelis pulled out of Gaza. A one state solution will look like Lebanon in the 1980's.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2024, 03:02:03 PMThe Arabs massacred Jews,
You have a selective reading of history, don't you?
I suppose Ukraine is filled with Nazis and must be cleansed too.
You ready to be decolonized yet, viper? The first thing should be to start "the obliteration of the Eurocentric cultural episteme"
Quote from: viper37 on February 25, 2024, 06:09:28 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2024, 03:02:03 PMThe Arabs massacred Jews,
You have a selective reading of history, don't you?
I suppose Ukraine is filled with Nazis and must be cleansed too.
Ukraine? Europeanized cultural elite exercising colonial domination over the repressed, true Slavic silent majority.
There is no end to this bullshit narrative and the damage it can do.
I don't think that there is any doubt that a one-state solution was possible in the post-WW2 period, but I am convinced that:
1. The Jews did not want that because they wanted a Jewish homeland where Jews had the power to prevent the incessant violent antisemitism that was widespread, not just in Europe.
2. The Palestinians would have accepted it. The stories about Palestinians massacring Jews are not all incorrect, but they are overblown and fail to comprehend the actual cause of the problem (that being that Jews were buying land from absentee Ottoman/Turkish/Arab landlords and turning out the existing Palestinian farmers, who had been renting the land for generations).
3. A power-sharing arrangement would inevitably break down, as we saw in Lebanon. Those arrangements don't withstand the changes that passing time bring.
I think that a one-state solution is absolutely impossible now. The radicals on both sides have built up such hatreds that a joint state would be awash in the blood of both the guilty and the innocent. The violence from both sides just creates more zealots (Israel has just created probably double the number of Hamas supporters as it has killed).
A two-state solution is almost as hard, especially if it attempts to satisfy Palestinian demands for the Oslo Accord borders. The Israeli government feels that Israel conquered the West Bank fair and square, and so the Palestinians need to fid somewhere else to live. The Western concept that borders can only be changed by agreement, not conquest (and, yes, that agreement is often coerced) is not a concept they think valid.
I think a one-state solution by definition is unworkable, at least not a democratic one-state solution. Pretty much all functioning democracies are either nation-states or melting pots, and it's not an accident. When two rivaling ethnicities are locked in a zero-sum fight within the democratic system, sooner or later it's the democratic system that gives way, not the ethnic allegiances.
I do think the Lebanon example that has already been mentioned is salient, that was a genuine attempt at having two different sects share power in a constitutional arrangement to try and make sense in a country that (at its founding) was closely split between Muslims and Christians. The result was long civil war and a large emigration of most of the Christians.
A one state solution which has genuine power sharing will result in both sides jockeying for ultimate control, which will spill into violence.
A one state solution which enshrines the power of one of the sects is inherently undemocratic and creates a permanent 2nd class of citizen.
Quote from: DGuller on February 26, 2024, 10:24:05 AMI think a one-state solution by definition is unworkable, at least not a democratic one-state solution. Pretty much all functioning democracies are either nation-states or melting pots, and it's not an accident. When two rivaling ethnicities are locked in a zero-sum fight within the democratic system, sooner or later it's the democratic system that gives way, not the ethnic allegiances.
And yet Canada still exists
The problem is, as Grumbler stated, the extremists on both sides are in power. That is not inevitable but it is the fundamental problem now.
Quebec had the little slip up with terrorism in the 60s with the FLQ, but we haven't spent generations killing each other. Situation is a bit different.
Also, and this might sound prejudicial, but I don't want the Palestinians to have access to Israeli nukes. Cause, you know...
Quote from: Razgovory on February 26, 2024, 11:13:15 AMAlso, and this might sound prejudicial, but I don't want the Palestinians to have access to Israeli nukes. Cause, you know...
They strike me as the enemies of Israel least likely to want to nuke Israel though.
Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2024, 12:43:56 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 26, 2024, 11:13:15 AMAlso, and this might sound prejudicial, but I don't want the Palestinians to have access to Israeli nukes. Cause, you know...
They strike me as the enemies of Israel least likely to want to nuke Israel though.
Yeah, I wonder what the "cause, you know" is referring to. I don't actually know who the Palestinians would nuke if they had nukes.
Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2024, 12:43:56 PMQuote from: Razgovory on February 26, 2024, 11:13:15 AMAlso, and this might sound prejudicial, but I don't want the Palestinians to have access to Israeli nukes. Cause, you know...
They strike me as the enemies of Israel least likely to want to nuke Israel though.
The enemy of Israel least likely to nuke Israel is Tyr. I remember a poll back in 2006 where 65% of Palestinians supported Al-Qaeda attacks in the US and Europe. https://web.archive.org/web/20120611152620/http://almashriq.hiof.no/general/300/320/327/fafo/reports/797.pdf
Other Muslims? Probably Saudi Arabia.
The US?
There's also the increased risk of proliferation.
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2024, 09:42:01 AMI don't think that there is any doubt that a one-state solution was possible in the post-WW2 period, but I am convinced that:
1. The Jews did not want that because they wanted a Jewish homeland where Jews had the power to prevent the incessant violent antisemitism that was widespread, not just in Europe.
2. The Palestinians would have accepted it. The stories about Palestinians massacring Jews are not all incorrect, but they are overblown and fail to comprehend the actual cause of the problem (that being that Jews were buying land from absentee Ottoman/Turkish/Arab landlords and turning out the existing Palestinian farmers, who had been renting the land for generations).
3. A power-sharing arrangement would inevitably break down, as we saw in Lebanon. Those arrangements don't withstand the changes that passing time bring.
There's a fascinating detail in Avi Shlaim's biography of King Hussein, Lion of Jordan, about King Abdullah trying to persuade Golda Meir to accept an autonomous Jewish canton within Jordan.
Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2024, 02:10:32 PMThe US?
There's also the increased risk of proliferation.
What groups would gain access that could not gain access through Russia or China?
In years past I would have said Iran, but given the recent cooperation between Russia and Iran I am not sure that is accurate anymore.
Surely in this extreme theoretical of a pure one state solution somehow being possible, getting rid of the nukes would be part of the process?
In today's world? That would make them a target instantly.
Quote from: Josquius on February 26, 2024, 04:57:05 PMSurely in this extreme theoretical of a pure one state solution somehow being possible, getting rid of the nukes would be part of the process?
Yeah, I imagine the Jews casting aside their weapons would make final decolonization much easier.
Quote from: Josquius on February 26, 2024, 04:57:05 PMSurely in this extreme theoretical of a pure one state solution somehow being possible, getting rid of the nukes would be part of the process?
Only a truly insane country would voluntarily give up nukes after what happened to Ukraine, the only country to ever do so.
Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2024, 08:43:34 PMOnly a truly insane country would voluntarily give up nukes after what happened to Ukraine, the only country to ever do so.
Well not nukes but also Libya gave up its WMD program.
South Africa too.
Is Kazakhstan no longer a country, or was Ukraine not the only nation to de-nuclearize?
Quote from: Josquius on February 26, 2024, 04:57:05 PMSurely in this extreme theoretical of a pure one state solution somehow being possible, getting rid of the nukes would be part of the process?
Indeed. In a hypothetical one-state solution, the country would not need nukes. There would be no nations determined to destroy it.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-origin-of-hamas-s-human-shields-strategy-in-gaza-opinion/ar-BB1iVFt6?cvid=0139b248eaf64a43bde8b5a713eb0435&ocid=winp2fptaskbar&ei=10
Quoten November 2006, months after Hamas won parliamentary elections and after the group began entrenching its rule in Gaza, Nizar Rayan, a political leaders and liaison with Hamas' armed wing, introduced a novel strategy to protect the houses of Hamas militants from IDF bombardment. Rayan, a fiery religious clerk within Hamas and a rising militant star, marshaled hundreds of civilians into a house that had received IDF warnings of an impending strike. Instead of fleeing, Rayan called on people to swarm the house and cover its rooftop with as many civilians as possible to force the Israeli military into a choice: Either commit a massacre, or call off the airstrike.
Israel called off the strike, and the incident received widespread international attention. Though the tactic drew condemnation from Human Rights Watch, which criticized calling civilians to the scene of a planned attack as risky and dangerous, Hamas leaders like Ismail Haniyeh praised the tactic as a marvelous feat of perseverance and nonviolent resistance.
Nizar Rayan proclaimed victory and vowed to use the self-described "human shields on rooftops" strategy to prevent future destruction of Hamas members' houses and infrastructure. It would go on to be used dozens of times in the years leading up to the first major war between Israel and Hamas in 2008-2009.
Ironically, Rayan was killed in January 2009 at his family home along with all four of his wives and 12 of his children. Tragically for his children, Rayan was killed by the failure of his own human shields strategy, which did not protect him after he received a warning call from the Shin Bet that an attack on his house was imminent.
Nevertheless, the human shields strategy progressively grew as part of Hamas's defensive posture in which it counted on its activities and assets within urban and crowded areas being immune from Israeli attacks that could result in widespread and unspeakable civilian casualties.
Partly due to the urban nature of Gaza, and partly by embedding its activities and assets among the civilian population, Hamas's infrastructure grew increasingly intertwined with civilian infrastructure and populations. This despite numerous occasions in which people in Gaza would object to rocket launches firing near their homes, tunnels being dug underneath their properties, or hidden stockpiles being placed close to their businesses and houses. Hamas mostly used the stick approach to silence opposition to its militant encroachment upon civilian areas and neighborhoods.
Hamas believed that as a people's militia and a righteous religious resistance group against the Israeli occupation, it had a moral right to operate amongst the population from which it derived its strength, legitimacy, and fighters.
Unfortunately, and horrendously, this strategy ultimately failed and brought unspeakable death and suffering upon the people of Gaza. Over time, and in past and current wars, the IDF became less risk-averse and more willing to tolerate civilian casualties in pursuit of high-value targets and military infrastructure. Israeli airstrikes and bombardment would regularly hit and destroy entire neighborhoods, commercial areas, schools, mosques and hospitals.
While it is true that Hamas would use these places for its activities, it unfortunately became exceptionally easy for the IDF to justify civilian casualties, wrongful deaths, and questionable actions by blaming Hamas for embedding itself amongst civilian populations and infrastructure.
Hamas's immoral decision to normalize the self-described "human shields" strategy has not only been incredibly destructive for Gaza's civilian population. It has also proved ineffective as the IDF loosened its rules of engagement to allow for more risky and deadly strikes on Hamas targets.
Multiple things are true simultaneously: The Israeli military kills civilians in its pursuit of militants and subsequently attempts to absolve itself of moral and operational responsibility by blaming Hamas's use of Gazans as human shields. And Hamas absolutely disregards the safety and well-being of Gazans by deliberately and nefariously placing its infrastructure and armaments among civilians and crowded neighborhoods and cities throughout the Gaza Strip. The group gives itself the right to be anywhere it deems necessary in Gaza because the interests of the "resistance" far outweigh any harm done to innocent civilians in pursuit of the supposed "greater good" and the "liberation of Palestine."
What began as Nizar Rayan's human shields strategy to protect militants' houses from Israeli bombing has sadly and ironically ended up with Hamas turning innocent and uninvolved Gaza civilians into its own "collateral damage."
Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib is a U.S. citizen from Gaza and a Middle East political analyst who writes extensively on Gaza's political and strategic affairs.
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2024, 10:00:31 PMIs Kazakhstan no longer a country, or was Ukraine not the only nation to de-nuclearize?
Yes, Kazakhstan and Belarus were also part of the Budapest Memorandum. Fine. But, in my defense, it was at the same time under similar circumstances.
The point is though that Russia gave security promises to the three of them in exchange for them getting rid of their nuclear weapons. And they have basically made Belarus a puppet state and aggressively invaded Ukraine twice.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of de-nuclearization.
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2024, 10:02:10 PMQuote from: Josquius on February 26, 2024, 04:57:05 PMSurely in this extreme theoretical of a pure one state solution somehow being possible, getting rid of the nukes would be part of the process?
Indeed. In a hypothetical one-state solution, the country would not need nukes. There would be no nations determined to destroy it.
It is the Middle East man. Somebody is always determined to destroy you.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 26, 2024, 07:10:59 PMIn today's world? That would make them a target instantly.
Like the other 180 nations without nuclear weapons?
Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2024, 08:43:34 PMQuote from: Josquius on February 26, 2024, 04:57:05 PMSurely in this extreme theoretical of a pure one state solution somehow being possible, getting rid of the nukes would be part of the process?
Only a truly insane country would voluntarily give up nukes after what happened to Ukraine, the only country to ever do so.
I'm not seeing a Russia analogue in this scenario.
Its all purely theoretical with the point being it isn't going to happen despite Razs imagination.
But these days the Palestinians are the main issue. It's in part precisely because Israel is normalising relations with the Arab nations that Hamas made such a nutty move.
When Canada decided to go non nuclear the Americans did not attack, but there was that close call when Tucker Carlson called for an invasion.
Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2024, 11:31:43 PMIt is the Middle East man. Somebody is always determined to destroy you.
Nukes don't stop terrorists, man.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 27, 2024, 08:17:12 AMWhen Canada decided to go non nuclear the Americans did not attack, but there was that close call when Tucker Carlson called for an invasion.
You guys joke but it was just a disaster that Ukraine got put in this position after giving up its nukes in exchange for security guarantees by Russia. Not to mention the fact that if Saddam Hussein had been successful getting nukes, Iraq doesn't get invaded in 2003.
I mean I am hopeful that countries will continue to disarm and not pursue nukes in the future, but there is that track record.
And, you know, I don't know if Canada is out of the woods yet considering how things are going down here :ph34r:
Quote from: Valmy on February 28, 2024, 09:38:36 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 27, 2024, 08:17:12 AMWhen Canada decided to go non nuclear the Americans did not attack, but there was that close call when Tucker Carlson called for an invasion.
You guys joke but it was just a disaster that Ukraine got put in this position after giving up its nukes in exchange for security guarantees by Russia. Not to mention the fact that if Saddam Hussein had been successful getting nukes, Iraq doesn't get invaded in 2003.
I mean I am hopeful that countries will continue to disarm and not pursue nukes in the future, but there is that track record.
And, you know, I don't know if Canada is out of the woods yet considering how things are going down here :ph34r:
I think former Soviet Republics are a special case.
Even if Ukraine had retained the nukes it inherited from the USSR, they would be defunct by now. Ukraine could not afford to maintain them all those years nor replace them.
Further, even if the Ukrainians had nukes, I am not sure that this would have stopped the Russian invasion. Putin is the type of gambler who might very well call that bluff.
I would say a nuclear Ukraine would likely never have had the invasion take place...because Russia would have made even more sure it stayed something akin to Belarus.
Likely with American/western blessing.
A convicted murderer (a Muslim) donated 17 dollars he worked a lot for in prison to a Gaza charity. Some director of some kind (a Muslim) shares the story,then some organisation called Gaza youth group declared that what's happening on Gaza and the US prison system is the same imperialstic project to press the downtrodden and the whole thing ultimately ends up raising 100k in donations for the murderer.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/03/california-prisoner-donates-paycheck-to-gaza
Quote from: Josquius on February 29, 2024, 09:54:25 AMI would say a nuclear Ukraine would likely never have had the invasion take place...because Russia would have made even more sure it stayed something akin to Belarus.
Likely with American/western blessing.
What exactly would Russia have done that they haven't already done to try and ensure Ukraine stays in Russia's orbit?
Quote from: Josquius on February 29, 2024, 09:54:25 AMI would say a nuclear Ukraine would likely never have had the invasion take place...because Russia would have made even more sure it stayed something akin to Belarus.
Likely with American/western blessing.
How could they possibly have made even more sure they become like Belarus? It strikes me they did do that constantly.
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2024, 08:43:19 PMQuote from: Josquius on February 29, 2024, 09:54:25 AMI would say a nuclear Ukraine would likely never have had the invasion take place...because Russia would have made even more sure it stayed something akin to Belarus.
Likely with American/western blessing.
What exactly would Russia have done that they haven't already done to try and ensure Ukraine stays in Russia's orbit?
Back in 2014 even while seizing territory they tip toed about a fair bit. Little green men and Russian soldiers going on holiday with all their equipment and all that.
There was also a lot of international pressure to get Russia to put on the breaks and stop it's advance just as Ukraine was on the point of breaking, giving us a semi frozen conflict in the donbass.
Just imagine there were nuclear weapons involved. Would the west be keen on allowing the "Donetsk People's Republic" to have nukes?
Of course I wouldn't see things even getting to that state. Intervention would come a lot harder and earlier to minimise democracy and keep a suitable puppet in power.
In history as we know it Ukraine had quite the reputation for corruption and illegal arms sales. Add nukes into that mix and the west would be only too keen to have a strong dictator in place.
I think back then Russia tip-toed because they still saw a chance the West would oppose them. They saw all they got just a mild slap on the wrist so they drew their conclusions for the 2022 invasion.
If Ukraine was nuclear-armed, its liberals would have been falling from windows like rain for the last 30+ years.
Quote from: Tamas on March 03, 2024, 05:56:26 PMA convicted murderer (a Muslim) donated 17 dollars he worked a lot for in prison to a Gaza charity. Some director of some kind (a Muslim) shares the story,then some organisation called Gaza youth group declared that what's happening on Gaza and the US prison system is the same imperialstic project to press the downtrodden and the whole thing ultimately ends up raising 100k in donations for the murderer.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/03/california-prisoner-donates-paycheck-to-gaza
I mean. Only seeing one side of the story here but as outlined here it sure does sound pretty shitty.
Baring in mind who the people are saying this and their weird definition of the word imperialist to mean "Bad shit the west, especially America, does" it doesn't sound particularly extreme.
UN Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict says reasonable grounds to believe rape occurred on October 7.
What a job title.
In puerile actions
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/palestine-protest-cambridge-university-israel-b2509505.html
Quote from: garbon on March 09, 2024, 04:20:42 AMIn puerile actions
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/palestine-protest-cambridge-university-israel-b2509505.html
Kinda' hard to deny that these concerned humanitarians are against the existence of Israel when they take their humanitarian concerns out on a guy who promised Israel would be created.
Quote from: Tamas on March 09, 2024, 06:56:36 AMQuote from: garbon on March 09, 2024, 04:20:42 AMIn puerile actions
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/palestine-protest-cambridge-university-israel-b2509505.html
Kinda' hard to deny that these concerned humanitarians are against the existence of Israel when they take their humanitarian concerns out on a guy who promised Israel would be created.
Yeah indeed. While legitimate to have greivances against Balfour, in the current context, it does bear resemblance to the chants about wanting a one state solution ruled by Palestine.
Beyond that, I think it distracts from the Palestinian cause rather than promote it. Allows an easy shifting of the discussion to cultural objects. Is violence to paintings that act as monuments to 'great men' a legitimate target or should they be inviolable? Do such physically destructive protests make people think about the cause with which they hope to draw attention or rather debate these same questions I'm now mentioning rhetorically. :P
Quote from: garbon on March 09, 2024, 07:19:52 AMit does bear resemblance to the chants about wanting a one state solution ruled by Palestine.
As opposed to wanting a one state solution ruled by Israel?
QuoteDo such physically destructive protests make people think about the cause with which they hope to draw attention
You'd have to ask the climate change and environmentalist people. Did it work? Germany stopped using nuclear power in the end, but I'm note sure there's a direct cause-to-effect scenario involved. I'd bet on something else ;)
Still, Greenpeace coup d'éclat and vandalism were quite common in the 80s and 90s. The came the more recent vandalism against art pieces by other group of climate protesters following in their footsteps.
Quote from: viper37 on March 09, 2024, 08:40:14 PMAs opposed to wanting a one state solution ruled by Israel?
I'm unaware of those chants but not sure how relevant.
Quote from: viper37 on March 09, 2024, 08:40:14 PMYou'd have to ask the climate change and environmentalist people. Did it work? Germany stopped using nuclear power in the end, but I'm note sure there's a direct cause-to-effect scenario involved. I'd bet on something else ;)
Still, Greenpeace coup d'éclat and vandalism were quite common in the 80s and 90s. The came the more recent vandalism against art pieces by other group of climate protesters following in their footsteps.
I think those are pretty ridiculous too. 'I threw soup at the Mona Lisa for climate change' ... okay?
Quote from: viper37 on March 09, 2024, 08:40:14 PMYou'd have to ask the climate change and environmentalist people. Did it work? Germany stopped using nuclear power in the end, but I'm note sure there's a direct cause-to-effect scenario involved. I'd bet on something else ;)
I am not aware that the German anti-nuclear movement destroyed paintings or statues. Care to enlighten us here what you refer to?
I'm really curious about these one state chants. I've never heard of them.
Quote from: Josquius on March 10, 2024, 09:04:07 AMI'm really curious about these one state chants. I've never heard of them.
This Jerusalem Post (https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-774723) article has some background on the Palestinian use of the chant/slogan as well as Jewish-American attempts to trademark the phrase.
I'm quite surprised that you've never heard of this. It appears almost everywhere you see pro-Palestinian demonstrations.
Quote from: grumbler on March 10, 2024, 11:18:51 AMQuote from: Josquius on March 10, 2024, 09:04:07 AMI'm really curious about these one state chants. I've never heard of them.
This Jerusalem Post (https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-774723) article has some background on the Palestinian use of the chant/slogan as well as Jewish-American attempts to trademark the phrase.
I'm quite surprised that you've never heard of this. It appears almost everywhere you see pro-Palestinian demonstrations.
I've certainly heard from the river to the sea Palestine will be free.
Is that all that is being referred to with chants (seemed to imply more than one) calling for a Palestine ruled one state solution? (it doesn't)
As that seems very off.
Quote from: garbon on March 10, 2024, 04:59:49 AMI think those are pretty ridiculous too. 'I threw soup at the Mona Lisa for climate change' ... okay?
Exactly. They are ridiculous. But you won't ascribe them to entire effort to fight back against climate change, where as here, you seem to equate this act of vandalism to the entire Palestinian cause.
Destroying a painting of one of Israel's founders = All Palestinians are antisemites.
Throwing soup of Mona Lisa to raise awareness about climate change = one idiot.
Hmm. Okay?
Quote from: Zanza on March 10, 2024, 08:32:10 AMQuote from: viper37 on March 09, 2024, 08:40:14 PMYou'd have to ask the climate change and environmentalist people. Did it work? Germany stopped using nuclear power in the end, but I'm note sure there's a direct cause-to-effect scenario involved. I'd bet on something else ;)
I am not aware that the German anti-nuclear movement destroyed paintings or statues. Care to enlighten us here what you refer to?
There was a few vandalism of paintings by some freaks.
There were anti nuclear protests following Fukushima, which led to the closure of most of Germany's nuclear plants, which is what I'm refering too.
I'm mostly talking about Greenpeace environmental protests of all kinds all throughout the 80s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism
Quote from: viper37 on March 10, 2024, 12:38:40 PMQuote from: garbon on March 10, 2024, 04:59:49 AMI think those are pretty ridiculous too. 'I threw soup at the Mona Lisa for climate change' ... okay?
Exactly. They are ridiculous. But you won't ascribe them to entire effort to fight back against climate change, where as here, you seem to equate this act of vandalism to the entire Palestinian cause.
Destroying a painting of one of Israel's founders = All Palestinians are antisemites.
Throwing soup of Mona Lisa to raise awareness about climate change = one idiot.
Hmm. Okay?
No, sorry. You don't get to make up things I never said.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/10/british-muslims-reflect-ramadan-begins
This article seems to have found the true victims of the terror attack on Israel: British Muslims.
Quote from: Josquius on March 10, 2024, 11:32:04 AMI've certainly heard from the river to the sea Palestine will be free.
Is that all that is being referred to with chants (seemed to imply more than one) calling for a Palestine ruled one state solution? (it doesn't)
As that seems very off.
The phrase "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" certainly does imply a one-state solution. You cannot get a Palestine "from the river to the sea" without eliminating the non-Palestine between the river and the sea. A look at a map of the Middle East will demonstrate that for you.
Quote from: Tamas on March 10, 2024, 02:51:47 PMhttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/10/british-muslims-reflect-ramadan-begins
This article seems to have found the true victims of the terror attack on Israel: British Muslims.
You linked to the wrong article. The one in your link says nothing about British Muslims being victims of Hamas terrorism.
Quote from: garbon on March 10, 2024, 02:50:40 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 10, 2024, 12:38:40 PMQuote from: garbon on March 10, 2024, 04:59:49 AMI think those are pretty ridiculous too. 'I threw soup at the Mona Lisa for climate change' ... okay?
Exactly. They are ridiculous. But you won't ascribe them to entire effort to fight back against climate change, where as here, you seem to equate this act of vandalism to the entire Palestinian cause.
Destroying a painting of one of Israel's founders = All Palestinians are antisemites.
Throwing soup of Mona Lisa to raise awareness about climate change = one idiot.
Hmm. Okay?
No, sorry. You don't get to make up things I never said.
What is it you said then?
Quote from: viper37 on March 10, 2024, 06:03:56 PMQuote from: garbon on March 10, 2024, 02:50:40 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 10, 2024, 12:38:40 PMQuote from: garbon on March 10, 2024, 04:59:49 AMI think those are pretty ridiculous too. 'I threw soup at the Mona Lisa for climate change' ... okay?
Exactly. They are ridiculous. But you won't ascribe them to entire effort to fight back against climate change, where as here, you seem to equate this act of vandalism to the entire Palestinian cause.
Destroying a painting of one of Israel's founders = All Palestinians are antisemites.
Throwing soup of Mona Lisa to raise awareness about climate change = one idiot.
Hmm. Okay?
No, sorry. You don't get to make up things I never said.
What is it you said then?
Great thing about a forum is you can easily go back and look. :)
Quote from: garbon on March 10, 2024, 06:46:18 PMGreat thing about a forum is you can easily go back and look.
I give up. I surrender.
Quote from: viper37 on March 10, 2024, 09:51:14 PMQuote from: garbon on March 10, 2024, 06:46:18 PMGreat thing about a forum is you can easily go back and look.
I give up. I surrender.
No if you were surrendering, you would apologise for making shit up.
Quote from: grumbler on March 10, 2024, 03:43:03 PMQuote from: Josquius on March 10, 2024, 11:32:04 AMI've certainly heard from the river to the sea Palestine will be free.
Is that all that is being referred to with chants (seemed to imply more than one) calling for a Palestine ruled one state solution? (it doesn't)
As that seems very off.
The phrase "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" certainly does imply a one-state solution. You cannot get a Palestine "from the river to the sea" without eliminating the non-Palestine between the river and the sea. A look at a map of the Middle East will demonstrate that for you.
The trouble is the multiple meanings of the word Palestine.
Palestine is a 'country'- the West Bank and Gaza, the areas 'ran' by the Palestinians.
Palestine is also a region- Israel and Palestine are both in the historic region of Palestine.
Though there absolutely are those using the phrase who mean it in a sense of "Genocide the Jews, Palestine-State Uber Alles", hence the controversy and calls for others to find a less vague phrase, the bulk of those using it don't carry any connotations of a one or two state solution. They just want Palestine (the entire region) to be free.
'Free' too is awfully vague in wording- North Korea is 'Free' according to the sense of the word used by the genocidal nuts and those on the right who want to smear all pro-Palestinian folks as the same.
Its absolutely not a free country according to many other definitions.
Quote from: Josquius on March 11, 2024, 03:53:56 AMQuote from: grumbler on March 10, 2024, 03:43:03 PMQuote from: Josquius on March 10, 2024, 11:32:04 AMI've certainly heard from the river to the sea Palestine will be free.
Is that all that is being referred to with chants (seemed to imply more than one) calling for a Palestine ruled one state solution? (it doesn't)
As that seems very off.
The phrase "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" certainly does imply a one-state solution. You cannot get a Palestine "from the river to the sea" without eliminating the non-Palestine between the river and the sea. A look at a map of the Middle East will demonstrate that for you.
The trouble is the multiple meanings of the word Palestine.
Palestine is a 'country'- the West Bank and Gaza, the areas 'ran' by the Palestinians.
Palestine is also a region- Israel and Palestine are both in the historic region of Palestine.
Though there absolutely are those using the phrase who mean it in a sense of "Genocide the Jews, Palestine-State Uber Alles", hence the controversy and calls for others to find a less vague phrase, the bulk of those using it don't carry any connotations of a one or two state solution. They just want Palestine (the entire region) to be free.
'Free' too is awfully vague in wording- North Korea is 'Free' according to the sense of the word used by the genocidal nuts and those on the right who want to smear all pro-Palestinian folks as the same.
Its absolutely not a free country according to many other definitions.
So you were lying when you said?
Quote from: Josquius on March 10, 2024, 09:04:07 AMI'm really curious about these one state chants. I've never heard of them.
After all this did happen in Britain.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andy-mcdonald-suspended-labour-israel-palestine-b2438609.html
QuoteLabour MP Andy McDonald suspended over 'between the river and the sea' Pro-Palestine speech
Some believe the slogan is antisemitic and calls for the destruction of Israel but pro-Palestinian protesters have contested this definition
So perhaps would better be described as you have heard it but don't agree with the interpretation.
Quote from: Josquius on March 11, 2024, 03:53:56 AMQuote from: grumbler on March 10, 2024, 03:43:03 PMQuote from: Josquius on March 10, 2024, 11:32:04 AMI've certainly heard from the river to the sea Palestine will be free.
Is that all that is being referred to with chants (seemed to imply more than one) calling for a Palestine ruled one state solution? (it doesn't)
As that seems very off.
The phrase "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" certainly does imply a one-state solution. You cannot get a Palestine "from the river to the sea" without eliminating the non-Palestine between the river and the sea. A look at a map of the Middle East will demonstrate that for you.
The trouble is the multiple meanings of the word Palestine.
Palestine is a 'country'- the West Bank and Gaza, the areas 'ran' by the Palestinians.
Palestine is also a region- Israel and Palestine are both in the historic region of Palestine.
Though there absolutely are those using the phrase who mean it in a sense of "Genocide the Jews, Palestine-State Uber Alles", hence the controversy and calls for others to find a less vague phrase, the bulk of those using it don't carry any connotations of a one or two state solution. They just want Palestine (the entire region) to be free.
'Free' too is awfully vague in wording- North Korea is 'Free' according to the sense of the word used by the genocidal nuts and those on the right who want to smear all pro-Palestinian folks as the same.
Its absolutely not a free country according to many other definitions.
Such lawyering is beneath you. The origin of the chant is obvious and the best defense people chanting it can have is stupidity and ignorance of the larger context of what they think they are protesting about.
QuoteSo you were lying when you said?
Nope. I quite logically didn't make the connection between that one well known phrase and your claim of multiple chants calling specifically for a one state outcome under Palestinian rule.
Quote from: Tamas on March 11, 2024, 04:04:30 AMQuote from: Josquius on March 11, 2024, 03:53:56 AMQuote from: grumbler on March 10, 2024, 03:43:03 PMQuote from: Josquius on March 10, 2024, 11:32:04 AMI've certainly heard from the river to the sea Palestine will be free.
Is that all that is being referred to with chants (seemed to imply more than one) calling for a Palestine ruled one state solution? (it doesn't)
As that seems very off.
The phrase "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" certainly does imply a one-state solution. You cannot get a Palestine "from the river to the sea" without eliminating the non-Palestine between the river and the sea. A look at a map of the Middle East will demonstrate that for you.
The trouble is the multiple meanings of the word Palestine.
Palestine is a 'country'- the West Bank and Gaza, the areas 'ran' by the Palestinians.
Palestine is also a region- Israel and Palestine are both in the historic region of Palestine.
Though there absolutely are those using the phrase who mean it in a sense of "Genocide the Jews, Palestine-State Uber Alles", hence the controversy and calls for others to find a less vague phrase, the bulk of those using it don't carry any connotations of a one or two state solution. They just want Palestine (the entire region) to be free.
'Free' too is awfully vague in wording- North Korea is 'Free' according to the sense of the word used by the genocidal nuts and those on the right who want to smear all pro-Palestinian folks as the same.
Its absolutely not a free country according to many other definitions.
Such lawyering is beneath you. The origin of the chant is obvious and the best defense people chanting it can have is stupidity and ignorance of the larger context of what they think they are protesting about.
Seriously?
Rather than just accept that it means different things to different people, indeed it seems purposefully designed/evolved to be so, the more logical answer to you is that thousands are out protesting and they don't know what they want and they are all actually in favour of whatever the most evil 10% amongst them want?
I 100% agree with the idea of a free Palestine in its entirety. I 100% disagree with the idea of genocide.
That there are evil fuckers on both sides of the conflict who wouldn't be happy until all of the other are completely dead should somehow mean...I don't think freedom is good?
As to the origin of the chant... Don't confuse the historic chants of All of Palestine is Jewish/Arab with this more recent invention
Quote from: Josquius on March 11, 2024, 03:53:56 AMThe trouble is the multiple meanings of the word Palestine.
Palestine is a 'country'- the West Bank and Gaza, the areas 'ran' by the Palestinians.
Palestine is also a region- Israel and Palestine are both in the historic region of Palestine.
This is a meaningless quibble. There is no "country" called Palestine that does not include Israel. In any case, there is no "from the river to the sea" that is compatible with the existence of Israel.
QuoteThough there absolutely are those using the phrase who mean it in a sense of "Genocide the Jews, Palestine-State Uber Alles", hence the controversy and calls for others to find a less vague phrase, the bulk of those using it don't carry any connotations of a one or two state solution. They just want Palestine (the entire region) to be free.
There is no direct correlation between the concept of a multi-ethnic single-state Palestine and "genocide the Jews." This is a false dichotomy. The phrase clearly does refer to a single state (else "free" from what?) but does not imply (nor do most of its adherents support) an Islamic state of Palestine.
Quote'Free' too is awfully vague in wording- North Korea is 'Free' according to the sense of the word used by the genocidal nuts and those on the right who want to smear all pro-Palestinian folks as the same.
Its absolutely not a free country according to many other definitions.
"The fact that "free" has many meanings, depending on context, does not make its meaning here subject to multiple interpretations. "Free" in this context is clearly "free from Israeli rule" and the inordinate influence of Judaism in the laws of the hoped-for country.
"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is not necessarily a call for violence, genocide, or whatever. It is a call for the destruction of Israel, and no amount of word-wrangling can get around that. However, it is also a maximalist position, akin to the Israeli governments position that "from the river to the sea," Palestine will be free of Palestinians.
Quote from: grumbler on March 11, 2024, 04:47:08 AMThis is a meaningless quibble. There is no "country" called Palestine that does not include Israel.
Eh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine
Its quite the mess with the Fatah/Hamas split and continued Israeli oppression, but the two state solution isn't out of nowhere.
QuoteIn any case, there is no "from the river to the sea" that is compatible with the existence of Israel.
I've heard some frame it as River=West Bank and Sea= Gaza.
Its from the river to the sea, no mention of all inclusive. Though generally the rights of Palestinians in Israel are also included in the call- and then there's the big problem of illegally seized lands today Jewish held within Israel and compensation.
QuoteThere is no direct correlation between the concept of a multi-ethnic single-state Palestine and "genocide the Jews." This is a false dichotomy. The phrase clearly does refer to a single state (else "free" from what?) but does not imply (nor do most of its adherents support) an Islamic state of Palestine.
'Free' too is awfully vague in wording- North Korea is 'Free' according to the sense of the word used by the genocidal nuts and those on the right who want to smear all pro-Palestinian folks as the same.
Its absolutely not a free country according to many other definitions.
"The fact that "free" has many meanings, depending on context, does not make its meaning here subject to multiple interpretations. "Free" in this context is clearly "free from Israeli rule" and the inordinate influence of Judaism in the laws of the hoped-for country.
"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is not necessarily a call for violence, genocide, or whatever. It is a call for the destruction of Israel, and no amount of word-wrangling can get around that. However, it is also a maximalist position, akin to the Israeli governments position that "from the river to the sea," Palestine will be free of Palestinians.
No. This would be the separate, historically popular from the river to the sea Palestine is Arab/Jewish.
And no. Of course its not a call for the 'destruction' of Israel. Not in the slightest.
You do get some on the Israeli right who'd argue the sort of changes freedom would entail would amount to the destruction of Israel (equal rights for Arabs? Madness) but from my point of view and the point of view of many of the people far more invested in this than me...not really.
Freedom and justice doesn't have to come at the expense of others.
I would say the ideal dream-world situation is that 'Israel' is 'destroyed' as in there is no nation called Israel, merely one united region-wide multi-ethnic Palestine. But realistically you'd be looking at a confederation structure at best and getting rid of the name Israel is such a non-issue it isn't worth bothering with.
Certainly in terms of the Israeli people, their rights, and so on, there should be no suggestion of damaging this. And indeed from the majority of people calling for Palestinian rights there isn't.
Palestine should be free.
This means both Palestine the region (equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel, justice for past land seizures for non-Israeli Palestinians) and Palestine the state (let it be a free country rather than a mostly occupied and continuously whittled away colony?)
The specifics differ from person to person though inherent in the slogan and according to most pro-Palestine people (obviously cunts do exist), neither involves any actual changes to Israeli freedom (ignoring their nutters.)
(now lets watch the selective quoting and spinning to come from some here)
Perhaps they mean free from Hamas, something I think we could all get behind.:showoff:
Quote from: Josquius on March 11, 2024, 03:53:56 AMThough there absolutely are those using the phrase who mean it in a sense of "Genocide the Jews, Palestine-State Uber Alles", hence the controversy and calls for others to find a less vague phrase, the bulk of those using it don't carry any connotations of a one or two state solution. They just want Palestine (the entire region) to be free.
Please tell me how you know this.
Quote from: garbon on March 11, 2024, 02:22:51 AMQuote from: viper37 on March 10, 2024, 09:51:14 PMQuote from: garbon on March 10, 2024, 06:46:18 PMGreat thing about a forum is you can easily go back and look.
I give up. I surrender.
No if you were surrendering, you would apologise for making shit up.
I didn't. I still don't understand.
QuotePerhaps they mean free from Hamas, something I think we could all get behind.
That's an obvious part of the equation yes.
Though Israel's role in that is what many would emphasise, which isn't completely invalid.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 11, 2024, 05:54:32 AMQuote from: Josquius on March 11, 2024, 03:53:56 AMThough there absolutely are those using the phrase who mean it in a sense of "Genocide the Jews, Palestine-State Uber Alles", hence the controversy and calls for others to find a less vague phrase, the bulk of those using it don't carry any connotations of a one or two state solution. They just want Palestine (the entire region) to be free.
Please tell me how you know this.
A mixture of common sense, actually speaking to people, and what pro-Palestinian writers of varied backgrounds say.
Equally how do you know the opposite is true and that all those hundreds of thousands at pro Palestine marches want Israel wiped out?
Quote from: Josquius on March 11, 2024, 06:32:52 AMA mixture of common sense, actually speaking to people, and what pro-Palestinian writers of varied backgrounds say.
You linked some Palestinian American professor who discussed the historical roots of the slogan. Is that what you're referring to? He was not talking about the meaning chanters are assigning to the slogan.
If you've actually spoken to people who chanted this at protests and they told you they are hoping for a multi-ethnic democratic state that's great. Can't argue with that.
There's nothing common sense about your assertion.
QuoteEqually how do you know the opposite is true and that all those hundreds of thousands at pro Palestine marches want Israel wiped out?
I don't know the opposite is true. It's an inference. The 1948 meaning of from the river to the sea was not something covered much in the media prior to the protests so it's surprising that a couple hundred thousand protestors would be familiar with it. What does seem more probable to me is that they would have picked up the slogan from it's usage by Hamas. And the natural inference to me is that slogan adopted from Hamas would assign a Hamas meaning to it. And I don't think the Hamas charter (or any of their public announcements) make any mention of a unified multi-ethnic democratic state.
That meaning of the slogan also seems much more congruous with the other protest slogans like genocide and ethnic cleansing. I have a very hard time imagining a protest leader shouting "stop the genocide!" into a megaphone and then "let's form a unified multi-ethnic state" right after.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 11, 2024, 06:53:28 AMYou linked some Palestinian American professor who discussed the historical roots of the slogan. Is that what you're referring to? He was not talking about the meaning chanters are assigning to the slogan.
If you've actually spoken to people who chanted this at protests and they told you they are hoping for a multi-ethnic democratic state that's great. Can't argue with that.
There's nothing common sense about your assertion.
Its not common sense to come to the conclusion that when hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom are generally pretty progressive, are using a vague slogan about freedom in part of the world where (the shit bags of) one people are currently actively oppressing another, they probably don't mean "Genocide everyone from the group doing the bombing"?
Even if we imagine there's absolutely zero evidence either way its usually common sense not to assume the worst possible interpretation. Combined with all else...yeah. Most people at Pro Palestinian marches don't want to wipe out the Israelis. Its an incredibly low bar we're talking about here so its mad to assume the majority of them don't even meet that.
QuoteI don't know the opposite is true. It's an inference. The 1948 meaning of from the river to the sea was not something covered much in the media prior to the protests so it's surprising that a couple hundred thousand protestors would be familiar with it. What does seem more probable to me is that they would have picked up the slogan from it's usage by Hamas. And the natural inference to me is that slogan adopted from Hamas would assign a Hamas meaning to it. And I don't think the Hamas charter (or any of their public announcements) make any mention of a unified multi-ethnic democratic state.
That meaning of the slogan also seems much more congruous with the other protest slogans like genocide and ethnic cleansing. I have a very hard time imagining a protest leader shouting "stop the genocide!" into a megaphone and then "let's form a unified multi-ethnic state" right after.
You say they've picked it up from Hamas... how and when?
I found this an interesting writeup (assuming its reliable, anything conflicting then do share)
https://mondoweiss.net/2023/11/on-the-history-meaning-and-power-of-from-the-river-to-the-sea/
It certainly does make sense that Hamas et al would usually be using Arabic slogans and that this one would have its origin in more genocidal earlier slogans of Jews and Arabs. But it says nothing about its current usage.
As said last time this discussion came up, that some Jews feel threatened by it I can understand and do feel that a less vague slogan should be found- if it risks a break of solidarity with more extreme groups then thats a good thing- but I don't accept for a second that everyone saying it takes the extremist line.
Quote from: viper37 on March 11, 2024, 06:04:24 AMQuote from: garbon on March 11, 2024, 02:22:51 AMQuote from: viper37 on March 10, 2024, 09:51:14 PMQuote from: garbon on March 10, 2024, 06:46:18 PMGreat thing about a forum is you can easily go back and look.
I give up. I surrender.
No if you were surrendering, you would apologise for making shit up.
I didn't. I still don't understand.
You wrote:
QuoteBut you won't ascribe them to entire effort to fight back against climate change, where as here, you seem to equate this act of vandalism to the entire Palestinian cause.
I never said anything like that. If you look at what I wrote, I said that I think those sorts of actions distract from the Palestinian cause + that action bears a resemblence to those chanting for Palestine to be free.
Only operating in a very dishonest fashion could you take that to mean I think all Palestinians are vandals and as you wrote: 'Destroying a painting of one of Israel's founders = All Palestinians are antisemites.'
You made shit up. I don't understand why but would ask you to respectfully not do so.
An older Palestinian slogan recorded in 1920 is perhaps more appropriate. "Palestine is ours, the Jews are our dogs".
Quote from: Josquius on March 11, 2024, 05:06:47 AMEh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine
Its quite the mess with the Fatah/Hamas split and continued Israeli oppression, but the two state solution isn't out of nowhere.
I looked at the List of UN Member States (https://www.un.org/en/about-us/member-states) and it doesn't list Palestine. A wiki article that notes the aspiration of Palestinians to establish a state is not proof that such a state actually exists. The two state solution isn't out of nowhere.
QuoteI've heard some frame it as River=West Bank and Sea= Gaza.
Its from the river to the sea, no mention of all inclusive. Though generally the rights of Palestinians in Israel are also included in the call- and then there's the big problem of illegally seized lands today Jewish held within Israel and compensation.
If Palestinians were saying "Near the river and near the sea" your interpretation that they are just referring to Gaza and the West bank would be reasonable. I don't think that you can posit that interpretation unless you ignore the meaning of "from... to..."
Israeli Palestinians have the same rights as other Israelis. There's the big problem of illegally seized Jewish-held lands today within Israel and compensation.
QuoteNo. This would be the separate, historically popular from the river to the sea Palestine is Arab/Jewish.
Can you restate this in a fashion that makes a clear argument?
QuoteAnd no. Of course its not a call for the 'destruction' of Israel. Not in the slightest.
I disagree, and a look at the map would show you how untenable your position is.
QuoteYou do get some on the Israeli right who'd argue the sort of changes freedom would entail would amount to the destruction of Israel (equal rights for Arabs? Madness) but from my point of view and the point of view of many of the people far more invested in this than me...not really.
Freedom and justice doesn't have to come at the expense of others.
This is mere argumentum ad numerum. That you and some others believe something is not evidence of anything. As gfar as "equal rights for Arabs? Madness" goes, Arabs in Israel do have equal rights, so it clearly is not madness at all. Freedom and justice doesn't have to come at the expense of others.
QuoteI would say the ideal dream-world situation is that 'Israel' is 'destroyed' as in there is no nation called Israel, merely one united region-wide multi-ethnic Palestine. But realistically you'd be looking at a confederation structure at best and getting rid of the name Israel is such a non-issue it isn't worth bothering with.
This is why the "from the river to the sea" slogan is so moronic and counter-productive. It's completely unrealistic and serves only to antagonize people who might otherwise be allies.
(snip of the vague generalizations)
Quote(now lets watch the selective quoting and spinning to come from some here)
I am looking forward to it. Commence when ready.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 11, 2024, 08:29:13 AMAn older Palestinian slogan recorded in 1920 is perhaps more appropriate. "Palestine is ours, the Jews are our dogs".
All else being ignored they have top notch slogan writers.
Quote from: grumbler on March 11, 2024, 09:01:42 AMI looked at the List of UN Member States (https://www.un.org/en/about-us/member-states) and it doesn't list Palestine. A wiki article that notes the aspiration of Palestinians to establish a state is not proof that such a state actually exists. The two state solution isn't out of nowhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine
Argue if you like that its not a proper state as its not on the UN list (poor Taiwan) but it clearly isn't a complete non-state.
A 'something' named Palestine certainly exists distinct from the region of Palestine.
QuoteIf Palestinians were saying "Near the river and near the sea" your interpretation that they are just referring to Gaza and the West bank would be reasonable. I don't think that you can posit that interpretation unless you ignore the meaning of "from... to..."
If a business was to say "We have branches from New York to LA!" does this mean it must be an unbroken chain of branches all the way across the country?
As said this is just one definition I've seen. Its deliberately vague and could mean any number of things. This is perhaps the 'lightest', the other extreme is then the all inclusive every single inch is Arab.
QuoteIsraeli Palestinians have the same rights as other Israelis.
Officially.
I've seen a fair bit of reporting that the reality is quite iffy.
QuoteNo. This would be the separate, historically popular from the river to the sea Palestine is Arab/Jewish.
Can you restate this in a fashion that makes a clear argument?
Historically "From the river to the sea is Jewish/Arab" were popular expressions.
You can clearly see the difference here to the much vaguer saying that the region should be free.
QuoteI disagree, and a look at the map would show you how untenable your position is.
This makes no sense.
QuoteThis is mere argumentum ad numerum. That you and some others believe something is not evidence of anything. As gfar as "equal rights for Arabs? Madness" goes, Arabs in Israel do have equal rights, so it clearly is not madness at all. Freedom and justice doesn't have to come at the expense of others.
Yeah, you were doing so well but there's the old Grumbler. This isn't debate club. Its a discussion.
So you're saying that people believing something is no evidence that people believe something?
That I think and say we shouldn't be killing Israelis or Palestinians in no way shows that I think we shouldn't be killing Israelis or Palestinians?
QuoteThis is why the "from the river to the sea" slogan is so moronic and counter-productive. It's completely unrealistic and serves only to antagonize people who might otherwise be allies.
That's going into another topic completely however.
I agree given the controversy built around from the river to the sea that the genuine pro peace groups should be looking for something else that specifically excludes the extremists.
But this says nothing about the issue that most pro-Palestine folks aren't in favour of tossing the Israelis into the sea.
There are lots of reasons why a disorganised big tent protest movement might be slow to move on from a catchphrase that has really taken off.
That they're all genocidal nut bags...is certainly not completely impossible...People do lie.
But it really doesn't add up.
Quote from: Tamas on March 11, 2024, 04:04:30 AMQuote from: Josquius on March 11, 2024, 03:53:56 AMQuote from: grumbler on March 10, 2024, 03:43:03 PMQuote from: Josquius on March 10, 2024, 11:32:04 AMI've certainly heard from the river to the sea Palestine will be free.
Is that all that is being referred to with chants (seemed to imply more than one) calling for a Palestine ruled one state solution? (it doesn't)
As that seems very off.
The phrase "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" certainly does imply a one-state solution. You cannot get a Palestine "from the river to the sea" without eliminating the non-Palestine between the river and the sea. A look at a map of the Middle East will demonstrate that for you.
The trouble is the multiple meanings of the word Palestine.
Palestine is a 'country'- the West Bank and Gaza, the areas 'ran' by the Palestinians.
Palestine is also a region- Israel and Palestine are both in the historic region of Palestine.
Though there absolutely are those using the phrase who mean it in a sense of "Genocide the Jews, Palestine-State Uber Alles", hence the controversy and calls for others to find a less vague phrase, the bulk of those using it don't carry any connotations of a one or two state solution. They just want Palestine (the entire region) to be free.
'Free' too is awfully vague in wording- North Korea is 'Free' according to the sense of the word used by the genocidal nuts and those on the right who want to smear all pro-Palestinian folks as the same.
Its absolutely not a free country according to many other definitions.
Such lawyering is beneath you. The origin of the chant is obvious and the best defense people chanting it can have is stupidity and ignorance of the larger context of what they think they are protesting about.
That is not lawyering, unless you count the kind of lawyering Trump is getting these days. :D
Jos, the difficulty with your position is that, as Grumbler first pointed out to you, the phrase "from the river to the sea, Palestinians will be free" is used by many who chant it, including supporters of Hamas, to mean the eradication of the state of Israel. It can also mean free in the sense of equal rights but while many academics have pointed out this meaning, they largely also concede that the first meaning is often the one meant by those who chant it.
I also agree with whoever made the point that it is a slogan that does the Palestinian movement more harm than good. That point has also been made by a number of scholars both Jewish and Islamic.
What people think when they say "From the river to the sea"
(https://i.imgur.com/mOckxTG.jpeg)
What Josquius thinks it means
(https://i.imgur.com/4A5UiRi.jpeg)
If the bumper-sticker-thinkers had thought for two seconds about their bumper-sticker slogan, they'd have made it read "Palestinians will be free" to obviate the inevitable conclusion of bystanders that they are referring to a Palestine that stretches from the river to the sea. Only their most slavish apologists even attempt to justify the phrase as using something other than the usual definitions of "river," "sea" and "Palestine."
It is based on the lie that the Israelis are colonists and settlers. Well I guess all those Jews fleeing ethnic cleansing in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Turkey...and others are just like colonists in the Americas? That is fucking convenient for Arab nationalists isn't it? Ethnic cleansing when done by Muslims? Fine. Get those dirty Jews. They are all colonists who don't deserve to live there anyway. Hell what about all the Palestinian Jews who suffered brutal pogroms before they joined the Zionists for protection? You don't hear that a significant number of Palestinians were Jewish at one point do you? No. All Palestinians are Muslims and Christians just coincidentally....
And believe me the Palestinians and the others know this history. They know that these are the people they drove from their homes. They just hope their supporters in the West and elsewhere are too stupid and ignorant to do their basic homework or don't care and just hate Jews as well.
So, you know, if you want me to think you are not some nationalists far right nutcase, at least acknowledge who at least half the Israelis are first.
That doesn't excuse the Israelis own bullshit and the actions of the Netanyahu government of course, but it amazes me how so many are eager to be chumps and tools.
Quote from: garbon on March 11, 2024, 07:21:52 AMthat action bears a resemblence to those chanting for Palestine to be free.
This is the part I misunderstood, obviously. I thought it was sarcasm, as this chant is usually ascribe to be antisemitism and call for the extermination of all Israelis.
I am sorry. :hug:
QuoteIt is based on the lie that the Israelis are colonists and settlers. Well I guess all those Jews fleeing ethnic cleansing in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Turkey...and others are just like colonists in the Americas? That is fucking convenient for Arab nationalists isn't it? Ethnic cleansing when done by Muslims? Fine. Get those dirty Jews. They are all colonists who don't deserve to live there anyway. Hell what about all the Palestinian Jews who suffered brutal pogroms before they joined the Zionists for protection? You don't hear that a significant number of Palestinians were Jewish at one point do you? No. All Palestinians are Muslims a
1: Two wrongs don't make a right.
2: you might want to check the timeline on mass Jewish emigration from the Muslim world. It was after 1948.
QuoteJos, the difficulty with your position is that, as Grumbler first pointed out to you, the phrase "from the river to the sea, Palestinians will be free" is used by many who chant it, including supporters of Hamas, to mean the eradication of the state of Israel. It can also mean free in the sense of equal rights but while many academics have pointed out this meaning, they largely also concede that the first meaning is often the one meant by those who chant it.
The problem with my position is... The facts that are my position? That it's a slogan used by many groups and the genocidal nutters are in a minority?
And that it's controversy is down to it's vagueness and also being used by the dodgy groups to mean something different to the norm?
Quote from: grumbler on March 11, 2024, 01:11:44 PMIf the bumper-sticker-thinkers had thought for two seconds about their bumper-sticker slogan, they'd have made it read "Palestinians will be free" to obviate the inevitable conclusion of bystanders that they are referring to a Palestine that stretches from the river to the sea. Only their most slavish apologists even attempt to justify the phrase as using something other than the usual definitions of "river," "sea" and "Palestine."
Except I'm a neutral on Israel/Palestine. I've just done what others are unwilling to and paid the most minimal of attention to what the pro Palestinian protestors actually say.
Countless direct comments from them out there where they explicitly state what they stand for and it's not the same thing as the Islamic extremists at all.
It's fascinating how keen people are to tell other people what they actually believe on this.
Criticise the optics by all means. But don't insist you know peoples beliefs better than they do themselves.
QuoteWhat people think when they say "From the river to the sea"
What Josquius thinks it means
I have no idea what you even mean here.
That second image looks more like the sort of 1984 nonsense Israel apologists come up with "The Palestinians, already have a bunch of states: Jordan for instance".
It was a joke.
I feel like this is the whole "defund the police" debate all over again.
I feel like there probably are some good-meaning people who use the phrase "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free!" to talk about human rights for Palestinians. That being said, it is clear the large majority of people using that phrase use it to mean the elimination of the state of Israel.
Just like when "defund the police" was a big phrase - some no doubt used it as a way of arguing to reform the police. But it was quite clear that many/most meant it 100% literally - get rid of the police.
Quote from: Barrister on March 11, 2024, 02:28:14 PMI feel like this is the whole "defund the police" debate all over again.
I feel like there probably are some good-meaning people who use the phrase "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free!" to talk about human rights for Palestinians. That being said, it is clear the large majority of people using that phrase use it to mean the elimination of the state of Israel.
Just like when "defund the police" was a big phrase - some no doubt used it as a way of arguing to reform the police. But it was quite clear that many/most meant it 100% literally - get rid of the police.
I keep thinking that as well.
In both cases, there were the people who were chanting the slogan, and then there was an entirely different group of people patronizingly reinterpreting the slogan to explain what the people chanting the slogan meant.
Quote from: Josquius on March 11, 2024, 02:12:15 PMThe problem with my position is... The facts that are my position? That it's a slogan used by many groups and the genocidal nutters are in a minority?
Why do you think the people who chant it thinking it means the eradication of Israel are in a minority?
Quote from: Valmy on March 11, 2024, 01:14:45 PMIt is based on the lie that the Israelis are colonists and settlers. Well I guess all those Jews fleeing ethnic cleansing in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Turkey...and others are just like colonists in the Americas? That is fucking convenient for Arab nationalists isn't it? Ethnic cleansing when done by Muslims? Fine. Get those dirty Jews. They are all colonists who don't deserve to live there anyway. Hell what about all the Palestinian Jews who suffered brutal pogroms before they joined the Zionists for protection? You don't hear that a significant number of Palestinians were Jewish at one point do you? No. All Palestinians are Muslims and Christians just coincidentally....
And believe me the Palestinians and the others know this history. They know that these are the people they drove from their homes. They just hope their supporters in the West and elsewhere are too stupid and ignorant to do their basic homework or don't care and just hate Jews as well.
So, you know, if you want me to think you are not some nationalists far right nutcase, at least acknowledge who at least half the Israelis are first.
That doesn't excuse the Israelis own bullshit and the actions of the Netanyahu government of course, but it amazes me how so many are eager to be chumps and tools.
Why does Israel itself refer to the people who live in settlements built in Palestinian terrorities as "settlers"?
Quote from: Barrister on March 11, 2024, 02:28:14 PMI feel like this is the whole "defund the police" debate all over again.
I feel like there probably are some good-meaning people who use the phrase "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free!" to talk about human rights for Palestinians. That being said, it is clear the large majority of people using that phrase use it to mean the elimination of the state of Israel.
On what basis do you say this?
What evidence is there to suggest of the hundreds of thousands at these marches that the majority, generally pretty soft middle class urban lefty sorts, go way beyond the pale of acceptable beliefs and want genocide?
Quote from: Josquius on March 11, 2024, 05:37:50 PMQuote from: Barrister on March 11, 2024, 02:28:14 PMI feel like this is the whole "defund the police" debate all over again.
I feel like there probably are some good-meaning people who use the phrase "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free!" to talk about human rights for Palestinians. That being said, it is clear the large majority of people using that phrase use it to mean the elimination of the state of Israel.
On what basis do you say this?
What evidence is there to suggest of the hundreds of thousands at these marches that the majority, generally pretty soft middle class urban lefty sorts, go way beyond the pale of acceptable beliefs and want genocide?
:huh: Cause the "pretty soft middle class urban lefty sorts", are the not the core pro-Palestinian movement. The core pro-Palestinian movement is Middle Eastern Muslims.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 11, 2024, 05:29:21 PMWhy does Israel itself refer to the people who live in settlements built in Palestinian terrorities are "settlers"?
I don't think anyone disagrees that the settlers on the West Bank are settlers.
The argument is whether all Israeli Jews in Israel are "colonialist settlers", with the unspoken addendum (sometimes spoken) that therefore their presence is unjust and they should be expelled.
The West Bank is non-Israeli land under military occupation. Calling the Israeli civilian presence there "settlements" is euphemistically polite. It's a flagrant violation of international law.
Quote from: Josquius on March 11, 2024, 05:37:50 PMOn what basis do you say this?
What evidence is there to suggest of the hundreds of thousands at these marches that the majority, generally pretty soft middle class urban lefty sorts, go way beyond the pale of acceptable beliefs and want genocide?
What evidence is there that suggests that everyone who wants to see Israel absorbed into a multi-religious secular state with the rest of Palestine must want to accomplish that via genocide?
Some supporters of Palestine from the river to the sea do, indeed, propose an effective genocide combined with ethnic cleansing and an Islamic state. Hamas, for instance. Others, and I suspect that this is the bulk of the abolish-Israel protesters in the West, think that there can be some kind of peaceful melding of Israel into Palestine. Still others chant the slogan and deny that it has anything to do with rivers or seas or even Palestine proper, but insist that it is instead some kind of promotion of equal rights for Palestinians.
The bumper-sticker slogan bandied about is not actually useful in conveying anything except angst among the supporters of Israel. Not even most of those using it are thinking about what it actually says.
QuoteWhy do you think the people who chant it thinking it means the eradication of Israel are in a minority?
I've gone over this quite a bit. You've direct man on the street interviews with the people at marches, writers of articles in papers and online, and then there's just the basic logic that it would be completely out of step with all the other positions of these demographics.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 11, 2024, 05:57:03 PMQuote from: Josquius on March 11, 2024, 05:37:50 PMQuote from: Barrister on March 11, 2024, 02:28:14 PMI feel like this is the whole "defund the police" debate all over again.
I feel like there probably are some good-meaning people who use the phrase "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free!" to talk about human rights for Palestinians. That being said, it is clear the large majority of people using that phrase use it to mean the elimination of the state of Israel.
On what basis do you say this?
What evidence is there to suggest of the hundreds of thousands at these marches that the majority, generally pretty soft middle class urban lefty sorts, go way beyond the pale of acceptable beliefs and want genocide?
:huh: Cause the "pretty soft middle class urban lefty sorts", are the not the core pro-Palestinian movement. The core pro-Palestinian movement is Middle Eastern Muslims.
We aren't talking about the "core pro-Palestinian movement". We are talking about the hundreds of thousands who turn up to protests in London et al and what the majority of people at these events want.
Though even looking at people in the middle east, I do think you over-estimate quite how blood thirsty general views are (though they've likely took a huge backwards step in recent months). A sizable chunk all for kill the Jews absolutely, but things were steadily over time coming more towards finding an actual practical solution.
Quote from: Josquius on March 11, 2024, 07:16:34 AMIts not common sense to come to the conclusion that when hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom are generally pretty progressive, are using a vague slogan about freedom in part of the world where (the shit bags of) one people are currently actively oppressing another, they probably don't mean "Genocide everyone from the group doing the bombing"?
Even if we imagine there's absolutely zero evidence either way its usually common sense not to assume the worst possible interpretation. Combined with all else...yeah. Most people at Pro Palestinian marches don't want to wipe out the Israelis. Its an incredibly low bar we're talking about here so its mad to assume the majority of them don't even meet that.
Leaving aside the question of whether or not Palestinians or Western Arabs are "progessive," yes, it makes perfect sense that people who feel oppressed will feel violence is their best option. That has been true of the vast majority of independence movements throughout history and of "people's revolutions" such as the French and Russian revolutions. You can count the Gandhis and Mandelas of the world on one hand.
Only two interpretations of the chant have been mentioned. One makes the Arabs look good and one makes them look bad. It is not illogical to believe one has higher probability if there is evidence suggesting that is so.
QuoteYou say they've picked it up from Hamas... how and when?
I found this an interesting writeup (assuming its reliable, anything conflicting then do share)
https://mondoweiss.net/2023/11/on-the-history-meaning-and-power-of-from-the-river-to-the-sea/
It certainly does make sense that Hamas et al would usually be using Arabic slogans and that this one would have its origin in more genocidal earlier slogans of Jews and Arabs. But it says nothing about its current usage.
As said last time this discussion came up, that some Jews feel threatened by it I can understand and do feel that a less vague slogan should be found- if it risks a break of solidarity with more extreme groups then thats a good thing- but I don't accept for a second that everyone saying it takes the extremist line.
I have no idea how people picked it up from Hamas. Probably the same way you imagine they picked it up from some 1948 PR statement no one has ever heard of before.
I liked your article. It made sense. People don't put a lot of thought into protest slogans. They get jacked up and start shouting them if someone else does. But now they've had some time to think about what it means and possibly realized that a group that is claiming victimhood and demanding third party assistance doesn't maximize compassion by chanting about kicking all the Jews out of the area. I certainly haven't heard it being chanted a great deal since the beginning.
https://mondoweiss.net/2023/11/on-the-history-meaning-and-power-of-from-the-river-to-the-sea/
Quotewe dreamed with Palestinians of freedom because we know that none of us will be free until Palestine is free.
:huh:
Quote from: garbon on March 12, 2024, 04:47:11 AMhttps://mondoweiss.net/2023/11/on-the-history-meaning-and-power-of-from-the-river-to-the-sea/
Quotewe dreamed with Palestinians of freedom because we know that none of us will be free until Palestine is free.
:huh:
:Joos
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2024, 04:02:56 AMI liked your article. It made sense. People don't put a lot of thought into protest slogans. They get jacked up and start shouting them if someone else does. But now they've had some time to think about what it means and possibly realized that a group that is claiming victimhood and demanding third party assistance doesn't maximize compassion by chanting about kicking all the Jews out of the area. I certainly haven't heard it being chanted a great deal since the beginning.
Sort of but this bit and their ending anecdote makes it clear they aren't happy about that. As in they'll happy go back to it if they could get round Israel's fear mongering to Jewish audiences.
QuoteActivists should note this reality. If one of our goals is to move Jewish American audiences, we need to recognize that the Israeli state and its allies have found it easy to weaponize this particular slogan in order to incite fear among Jews.
QuoteMost of us, including myself, were not aware of the earlier moments of this slogan's history or its various shades of meaning in different contexts. And that doesn't really matter. More important than this history was the buoyant mood of the motley crowds as we sang.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2024, 04:02:56 AMLeaving aside the question of whether or not Palestinians or Western Arabs are "progessive," yes, it makes perfect sense that people who feel oppressed will feel violence is their best option. That has been true of the vast majority of independence movements throughout history and of "people's revolutions" such as the French and Russian revolutions. You can count the Gandhis and Mandelas of the world on one hand.Only two interpretations of the chant have been mentioned. One makes the Arabs look good and one makes them look bad. It is not illogical to believe one has higher probability if there is evidence suggesting that is so.
I don't see how its relevant whether Arabs are progressive or not.
This is a common attack line from the right which completely misses the point.
The protestors don't want rights for Palestinians because of any special feature of them. There's no naiive idea that they're helping "their side".
They want rights for Palestinians because they're people.
QuoteI have no idea how people picked it up from Hamas. Probably the same way you imagine they picked it up from some 1948 PR statement no one has ever heard of before.
I liked your article. It made sense. People don't put a lot of thought into protest slogans. They get jacked up and start shouting them if someone else does. But now they've had some time to think about what it means and possibly realized that a group that is claiming victimhood and demanding third party assistance doesn't maximize compassion by chanting about kicking all the Jews out of the area. I certainly haven't heard it being chanted a great deal since the beginning.
As said I agree people should think a bit more strategically about what they're chanting and find something less vague.
But the discussion here wasn't whether its a clever chant or anything like that, it was whether its a chant for wiping out Israel and Palestine ruling over the entire region.
Quote from: Josquius on March 12, 2024, 04:56:20 AMI don't see how its relevant whether Arabs are progressive or not.
This is a common attack line from the right which completely misses the point.
The protestors don't want rights for Palestinians because of any special feature of them. There's no naiive idea that they're helping "their side".
They want rights for Palestinians because they're people.
Dude, you're the one who brought it up. Maybe you need to go back and read the post I was responding to.
QuoteAs said I agree people should think a bit more strategically about what they're chanting and find something less vague.
But the discussion here wasn't whether its a clever chant or anything like that, it was whether its a chant for wiping out Israel and Palestine ruling over the entire region.
It's the same discussion. It's not a clever chant *because* it sounds like they want to wipe out Israel.
One problem I have is that "it sounds like that but it was not meant that way" is a bog standard right-wing excuse for a lot of their racist/fascist talk that we do not hesitate to call BS on. So let's stop the dishonest fig-leafing of the fact that it's a chant created by anti-semitic would-be genociders and picked up by ignorant useful idiots who like it because it rhymes and has the word "free" in it.
QuoteDude, you're the one who brought it up. Maybe you need to go back and read the post I was responding to.
What?
No I didn't?
You're the only one bringing up the views of Arabs in this. I was talking about the Pro-Palestine protestors.
QuoteIt's the same discussion. It's not a clever chant *because* it sounds like they want to wipe out Israel.
Completely disagree. Its clever (from the POV of those who want to wipe out Israel) as its vague enough it could be spun their way though would also be believed by most to be perfectly innocent thus allowing it to be easily picked up by people who have no interest in killing anyone.
Its also a dumb chant to use for the sane pro-Palestinian movement for the same reasons of vagueness and the potential for nutters to jump on board, and for opponents to paint it as being entirely about the nutters.
Quote from: Tamas on March 12, 2024, 06:00:33 AMOne problem I have is that "it sounds like that but it was not meant that way" is a bog standard right-wing excuse for a lot of their racist/fascist talk that we do not hesitate to call BS on. So let's stop the dishonest fig-leafing of the fact that it's a chant created by anti-semitic would-be genociders and picked up by ignorant useful idiots who like it because it rhymes and has the word "free" in it.
We're talking about basically the complete inverse situation here.
Less regular people "Oh that sounds a bit killy" and its users going "no wait actually its not!" and more
regular people going "That sounds completely innocent" and then opponents going "no wait actually its a call for genocide!"
Is the origin of the expression a cunning design by the anti-semites specifically to appeal to moderate people and get them sort of onside? Perhaps? Its semantic origins certainly come from Jewish and then Arab calling for death and destruction.
But is that how it is actually meant by most of the people using it? Absolutely not. The change in the wording specifically removes the killing.
Quote from: Tamas on March 12, 2024, 06:00:33 AMOne problem I have is that "it sounds like that but it was not meant that way" is a bog standard right-wing excuse for a lot of their racist/fascist talk that we do not hesitate to call BS on. So let's stop the dishonest fig-leafing of the fact that it's a chant created by anti-semitic would-be genociders and picked up by ignorant useful idiots who like it because it rhymes and has the word "free" in it.
I think you have it backwards, Hamas did not pick up the chant until decades after it was created
This is quite a depressing minor story. Sure to help build some anti semitism.
Finding from the river to the sea offensive ok fair enough. But the Palestinian flag?...
https://amp.theguardian.com/football/2024/mar/11/fa-to-ask-amateur-football-club-to-remove-palestine-corner-flags
Parents are the worst thing about kids sports. This is sadly not a surprising development.
Quote from: Josquius on March 12, 2024, 06:35:26 AMWhat?
No I didn't?
You're the only one bringing up the views of Arabs in this. I was talking about the Pro-Palestine protestors.
If you meant the white protestors it would have been so much simpler to just say the white protestors.
QuoteCompletely disagree. Its clever (from the POV of those who want to wipe out Israel) as its vague enough it could be spun their way though would also be believed by most to be perfectly innocent thus allowing it to be easily picked up by people who have no interest in killing anyone.
Its also a dumb chant to use for the sane pro-Palestinian movement for the same reasons of vagueness and the potential for nutters to jump on board, and for opponents to paint it as being entirely about the nutters.
This is a carbon copy of defund the police. Someone shouts something stupid and self destructive at a protest and someone has to rush to their defense telling us how we've got it all wrong.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 12, 2024, 08:14:28 PMIf you meant the white protestors it would have been so much simpler to just say the white protestors.
I mean the protestors.
Looking at photos of the protests most of them do indeed seem to be white, but I don't see where this is particularly relevant.
Certainly we're talking about protestors in western countries with the English slogan of from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. Not people in the middle east who will also have views on the issue and separate Arabic slogans.
QuoteThis is a carbon copy of defund the police. Someone shouts something stupid and self destructive at a protest and someone has to rush to their defense telling us how we've got it all wrong.
No.
Defund the police on the surface is dumb and must be explained with its context and what it means in practice to make sense.
Palestine will be free on the surface is hard to disagree with and must be explained with its context and related historic phrases to sound frightening- and dumb for the desires of many of those saying it.
Maybe basic geography needs to be explained for "from the river to the sea", sure, but it's not a very elaborate concept otherwise. And again, best defense the chanters have is ignorance and stupidity, which is never a good look.
Quote from: Tamas on March 13, 2024, 04:29:05 AMMaybe basic geography needs to be explained for "from the river to the sea", sure, but it's not a very elaborate concept otherwise. And again, best defense the chanters have is ignorance and stupidity, which is never a good look.
The basic geography is well understood. The Jordan River and Med are standout natural borders for the region of Palestine.
The issue is some are reading a unwritten "The only freedom is national border expansion. All inclusive. Destroy the Jews" whilst others see nothing of the sort and recognise one people's freedom doesn't have to come at the expense of another.
Quote from: Josquius on March 13, 2024, 04:33:28 AMQuote from: Tamas on March 13, 2024, 04:29:05 AMMaybe basic geography needs to be explained for "from the river to the sea", sure, but it's not a very elaborate concept otherwise. And again, best defense the chanters have is ignorance and stupidity, which is never a good look.
The basic geography is well understood. The Jordan River and Med are standout natural borders for the region of Palestine.
The issue is some are reading a unwritten "The only freedom is national border expansion. All inclusive. Destroy the Jews" whilst others see nothing of the sort and recognise one people's freedom doesn't have to come at the expense of another.
Here's a map to support your "natural borders of Palestine" thing:
(https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-de53a4eb9e4e6539966f8afbe129a6be)
You can surely note from the Jordan river to the sea that's largely called Israel, not Palestine. So saying that within those boundaries "Palestine" will be "free" clearly implies that Israel is what keeping Palestine un-free.
And the reason for all these explanations isn't that without these explanations the chant seems innocent. It is the exact opposite. The chant is clearly and openly malicious, it is attempts like yours to hand-wave that obvious undertone away what makes it necessary to highlight the obvious facts around it. The dishonesty is entirely on the "pro-chant" side on this one.
Quote from: Josquius on March 13, 2024, 04:01:59 AMPalestine will be free on the surface is hard to disagree with and must be explained with its context and related historic phrases to sound frightening- and dumb for the desires of many of those saying it.
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free is very easy to disagree with. If Palestine exists, free or not, from the river to the sea, Israel will not exist, since it is located between the river and the sea.
Quote from: Tamas on March 13, 2024, 04:46:02 AMQuote from: Josquius on March 13, 2024, 04:33:28 AMQuote from: Tamas on March 13, 2024, 04:29:05 AMMaybe basic geography needs to be explained for "from the river to the sea", sure, but it's not a very elaborate concept otherwise. And again, best defense the chanters have is ignorance and stupidity, which is never a good look.
The basic geography is well understood. The Jordan River and Med are standout natural borders for the region of Palestine.
The issue is some are reading a unwritten "The only freedom is national border expansion. All inclusive. Destroy the Jews" whilst others see nothing of the sort and recognise one people's freedom doesn't have to come at the expense of another.
Here's a map to support your "natural borders of Palestine" thing:
(https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-de53a4eb9e4e6539966f8afbe129a6be)
You can surely note from the Jordan river to the sea that's largely called Israel, not Palestine. So saying that within those boundaries "Palestine" will be "free" clearly implies that Israel is what keeping Palestine un-free.
And the reason for all these explanations isn't that without these explanations the chant seems innocent. It is the exact opposite. The chant is clearly and openly malicious, it is attempts like yours to hand-wave that obvious undertone away what makes it necessary to highlight the obvious facts around it. The dishonesty is entirely on the "pro-chant" side on this one.
Funny, a part I was thinking of adding to my reply but eventually didn't: its curious how these really literalist people get so hung up on how you also have Israel between the river and the sea... but they don't really care that the river only covers a part of Palestine, even just looking at the West Bank it doesn't cover the whole lot (unless you want to get all hydrological with the Dead Sea).
As I've covered this is a problem with the two meanings of Palestine. There's the sate of Palestine, then there's the historic region of Palestine. The region has a long history of being named Palestine long before Israel was established there.
Maybe we need to find a third neutral name? Its kind of like the term 'British Isles' and Irish people sometimes seeing this as implying ownership
And yes. Israel is largely what is keeping Palestine unfree. That is absolutely correct. Even where shitty governments in the Palestinian State are involved its very arguable they're only really doing their thing in response to Israel.
But does that mean the only logical responses are keep everything exactly as it is or absolutely destroy Israel and grind it into dust? There's also the (rather difficult considering its politics) option of Israel being less of a cunty nation to consider.
I'd say you're the one hand waving here. This dishonesty is just insane.
Since you seem very much for accepting nuanced explanations for sentences by the people who say them, I am wondering about your take on this Tory donor's sense of humour which many highlight as blatantly racist but he is adamant it is not how those comments were meant:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/12/tory-donor-frank-hester-no-room-for-the-indians
Quote from: Tamas on March 13, 2024, 05:22:32 AMSince you seem very much for accepting nuanced explanations for sentences by the people who say them, I am wondering about your take on this Tory donor's sense of humour which many highlight as blatantly racist but he is adamant it is not how those comments were meant:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/12/tory-donor-frank-hester-no-room-for-the-indians
You're the one adopting the explained side here. I'm the one taking it at face value.
That Tory bloke specifically said Abbot should be shot and she makes him hate all black women. That's pretty targeted and fucked up.
This is fairly going round in circles. So a summary.
*"From the river to the sea Palestine is Jewish" began as a Zionist expression dating back to before Israel was established.
*"From the river to the sea Palestine is Arab/Islamic" became used by Palestinian extremists of differing stripes in the 60s, which aligned with more mainstream Palestinian wishes of the time to see all their lands retaken.
*In the 70s it was used again by extremist Israelis to say "between the sea and the Jordan there will be only Israeli sovereignty"
*In the 2000s "From the river to the sea Palestine will be free" began to be used by the pro-Palestinian movement. It had a nice rhyme to it and worked well as a slogan that avoided pinning itself to any actual policy and was merely a general purpose chant for justice.
*In the current wave of protests, much much bigger than usual, in response to big shit going down it has really taken off in usage and gotten mainstream coverage.
*Actual interviews with random people at the protests and articles written from folk involved have said... no. They mean exactly what they say. There's no hidden meaning. They want Palestine to be free. They want Israelis and Palestinians to be at peace and for the oppression of Palestinians to stop.
*Some Jewish groups have responded saying its evil and anti-semitic and it means they want to kill all Israelis. This is quite a messy situation with there being lots of good faith reactions of fear here, but also a hell of a lot of fires being fuelled by those who to maintain want a "Israel good, Palestine bad" image, and it all links into each other furthering the fear.
*The right have really latched onto this and are spreading the message amongst the population as a whole that anyone who defends Palestine is evil and a threat.
*Its use has sharply tapered off amongst many protesters who despite their obvious intended meaning, accept at face value that its vagueness might be giving the wrong idea, draw correlation with similarly worded but completely differently intended earlier uses, upsetting innocent people, and providing ammo to those supporting the oppression they oppose.
Which brings us back to the entire reason this topic came up again- no, pro-Palestine protests are not filled with chants for a one state solution that eliminates Israel.
Jos you seem to be reading the evidence in a peculiar way. The link you gave before traced the origin of the slogan with that wording to anti-Oslo Palestinian demonstrators. I.e. people who advocate a one-state solution that eliminates Israel. The slogan isn't really capable of carrying another meaning. Hypothetically if Israel were to withdraw to pre-67 borders and a new Palestinian state created in the remainder, then the slogan would not be fulfilled. Palestinians might enjoy freedom from the river to the sea, but *Palestine* would not.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 13, 2024, 07:57:29 AMJos you seem to be reading the evidence in a peculiar way. The link you gave before traced the origin of the slogan with that wording to anti-Oslo Palestinian demonstrators. I.e. people who advocate a one-state solution that eliminates Israel. The slogan isn't really capable of carrying another meaning. Hypothetically if Israel were to withdraw to pre-67 borders and a new Palestinian state created in the remainder, then the slogan would not be fulfilled. Palestinians might enjoy freedom from the river to the sea, but *Palestine* would not.
Note that Josq has invented a new history for the slogan in which the Jews originated it.
Stop making stuff up.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 13, 2024, 07:57:29 AMJos you seem to be reading the evidence in a peculiar way. The link you gave before traced the origin of the slogan with that wording to anti-Oslo Palestinian demonstrators. I.e. people who advocate a one-state solution that eliminates Israel. The slogan isn't really capable of carrying another meaning. Hypothetically if Israel were to withdraw to pre-67 borders and a new Palestinian state created in the remainder, then the slogan would not be fulfilled. Palestinians might enjoy freedom from the river to the sea, but *Palestine* would not.
It has some origin in that period where some did indeed want that whilst for others it was mere upset at surrendering claims completely with nothing in return for Palestinians.
And even amongst one state supporters seeing Israel 'eliminated' is quite loaded language- as said an ideal dream world (impractical) situation would be a single united Palestine, eliminating the current Israel and State of Palestine, where both groups live in peace.
If everyone in a region has freedom then that region is free in my book.
Again an issue of the same word having multiple meanings- some of the more ridiculous Scottish independence pushers go on about a "Free Scotland" despite Scotland being perfectly free as part of the UK.
The slogan isn't "Palestinians will be free" It is "Palestine will be free". They don't want freedom in the western sense anymore than the Afghanis who supported the Taliban wanted freedom. It is a nationalist call.
Quote from: grumbler on March 14, 2024, 06:10:53 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on March 13, 2024, 07:57:29 AMJos you seem to be reading the evidence in a peculiar way. The link you gave before traced the origin of the slogan with that wording to anti-Oslo Palestinian demonstrators. I.e. people who advocate a one-state solution that eliminates Israel. The slogan isn't really capable of carrying another meaning. Hypothetically if Israel were to withdraw to pre-67 borders and a new Palestinian state created in the remainder, then the slogan would not be fulfilled. Palestinians might enjoy freedom from the river to the sea, but *Palestine* would not.
Note that Josq has invented a new history for the slogan in which the Jews originated it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea
QuoteThe precise origins of the phrase are disputed.[18] According to American historian Robin D. G. Kelley, the phrase "began as a Zionist slogan signifying the boundaries of Eretz Israel."[3] Israeli-American historian Omer Bartov notes that Zionist usage of such language predates the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 and began with the Revisionist movement of Zionism led by Vladimir Jabotinski, which spoke of establishing a Jewish state in all of Palestine and had a song which includes: "The Jordan has two banks; this one is ours, and the other one too," suggesting a Jewish state extending even beyond the Jordan River.[19]
Kelley writes that the phrase was adopted by the Palestine Liberation Organization in the mid-1960s; the 1964 charter of the PLO's Palestinian National Council called for "the recovery of the usurped homeland in its entirety". The 1964 charter stated that "Jews who are of Palestinian origin shall be considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine", specifically defining "Palestinian" as those who had "normally resided in Palestine until 1947".[20] In the 1968 revision, the charter was further revised, stating that "Jews who had resided normally in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion" would be considered Palestinian.[20][6]
In 1977, the concept appeared in an election manifesto of the Israeli political party Likud, which stated that "between the sea and the Jordan there will be only Israeli sovereignty."[21][22]
For Elliott Colla, "it is unclear when and where the slogan "from the river to the sea," first emerged within Palestinian protest culture."[17] In November 2023, Colla wrote that he had not encountered the phrase – in either Standard nor Levantine Arabic – in Palestinian revolutionary media of the 1960s and 1970s and noted that "the phrase appears nowhere in the Palestinian National Charters of 1964 or 1968, nor in the Hamas Charter of 1988."[17]
In 1979, the phrase was invoked by delegates attending the Palestine Congress of North America.[23]
Colla notes that activists of the First Intifada (1987-1993) "remember hearing variations of the phrase in Arabic from the late 1980s onwards" and that the phrases have been documented in graffiti from the period in works such as Saleh Abd al-Jawad's "Faṣā'il al-ḥaraka al-waṭaniyya al-Filasṭīniyya fi-l-arāḍī al-muḥtalla wa-shu'ārāt al-judrān" (1991)[24] and Julie Peteet's "The Writing on the Walls: The Graffiti of the Intifada" (1996).[25][17]
The phrase appeared in a 2021 B'Tselem report entitled "A Regime of Jewish Supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This Is Apartheid" that described Israel's de facto rule over the territory from the river to the sea, through its occupation of the West Bank and blockade of the Gaza Strip, as a regime of apartheid.[26][27]
Who's inventing what?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2024, 09:24:31 AMThe slogan isn't "Palestinians will be free" It is "Palestine will be free". They don't want freedom in the western sense anymore than the Afghanis who supported the Taliban wanted freedom. It is a nationalist call.
Again with the racism.
You love religious fanatics of all kinds, hate secularism, but then you complain if these fanatics take over a movement and start killing people. It's as if you're some kind of leftist who rejoice when things turn to shit.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2024, 09:24:31 AMThe slogan isn't "Palestinians will be free" It is "Palestine will be free". They don't want freedom in the western sense anymore than the Afghanis who supported the Taliban wanted freedom. It is a nationalist call.
I'm impressed you have an understanding of what every single Palestinian, and every single Palestinian supporter believes. It must've taken years of research for you to come to that kind of understanding.
Of course I jest, this thread is devolving into hyperbole.
Quote from: viper37 on March 14, 2024, 10:05:54 AM(snip of bogus Wiki article)
Who's inventing what?
Whatever person wrote that wiki article (maybe Josq) is inventing that history. The referenced article for the claim isn't written by D. G. Kelley and doesn't even mention Kelly.
Don't use Wiki as an authoritative source. Use Wiki only to find the
actual source (which, AFAICT, does not exist for this claim).
Quote from: viper37 on March 14, 2024, 10:07:39 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2024, 09:24:31 AMThe slogan isn't "Palestinians will be free" It is "Palestine will be free". They don't want freedom in the western sense anymore than the Afghanis who supported the Taliban wanted freedom. It is a nationalist call.
Again with the racism.
You love religious fanatics of all kinds, hate secularism, but then you complain if these fanatics take over a movement and start killing people. It's as if you're some kind of leftist who rejoice when things turn to shit.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 14, 2024, 10:10:11 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2024, 09:24:31 AMThe slogan isn't "Palestinians will be free" It is "Palestine will be free". They don't want freedom in the western sense anymore than the Afghanis who supported the Taliban wanted freedom. It is a nationalist call.
I'm impressed you have an understanding of what every single Palestinian, and every single Palestinian supporter believes. It must've taken years of research for you to come to that kind of understanding.
Of course I jest, this thread is devolving into hyperbole.
So are you holding out hope that there is some hidden faction of Palestinians who want a liberal democracy of peace and tolerance that has overwhelming support? Face it, the majority would go with a Hamas or Hamas-style dictatorship if given a chance. That's the political culture there. Democracy is pretty scarce on the ground in that part of the world.
Quote from: grumbler on March 14, 2024, 11:13:22 AMQuote from: viper37 on March 14, 2024, 10:05:54 AM(snip of bogus Wiki article)
Who's inventing what?
Whatever person wrote that wiki article (maybe Josq) is inventing that history. The referenced article for the claim isn't written by D. G. Kelley and doesn't even mention Kelly.
Don't use Wiki as an authoritative source. Use Wiki only to find the actual source (which, AFAICT, does not exist for this claim).
Hot Tip: Wiki typically sources it's claims, just click on the little number behind the statement and use that as a source. It works surprisingly well! Unless the source doesn't say what Wiki says it does...
Public opinion polls have historically consistently shown that a majority of Palestinians prefer a two-state solution with a liberal democratic Palestine. You won't find that majority today, because their women and children are being murdered. Similarly, public opinion polls have historically consistently shown that a majority of Israelis prefer a two-state solution with a liberal democratic Palestine. You won't find that majority today, because their women and children were murdered.
The latest PO poll I saw with Palestinians saw the majority favoring no solution at all, having given up hope of any solution whatsoever.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2024, 11:26:44 AMQuote from: grumbler on March 14, 2024, 11:13:22 AMQuote from: viper37 on March 14, 2024, 10:05:54 AM(snip of bogus Wiki article)
Who's inventing what?
Whatever person wrote that wiki article (maybe Josq) is inventing that history. The referenced article for the claim isn't written by D. G. Kelley and doesn't even mention Kelly.
Don't use Wiki as an authoritative source. Use Wiki only to find the actual source (which, AFAICT, does not exist for this claim).
Hot Tip: Wiki typically sources it's claims, just click on the little number behind the statement and use that as a source. It works surprisingly well! Unless the source doesn't say what Wiki says it does...
Hot tip: you cannot have my argument.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2024, 11:20:14 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 14, 2024, 10:10:11 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2024, 09:24:31 AMThe slogan isn't "Palestinians will be free" It is "Palestine will be free". They don't want freedom in the western sense anymore than the Afghanis who supported the Taliban wanted freedom. It is a nationalist call.
I'm impressed you have an understanding of what every single Palestinian, and every single Palestinian supporter believes. It must've taken years of research for you to come to that kind of understanding.
Of course I jest, this thread is devolving into hyperbole.
So are you holding out hope that there is some hidden faction of Palestinians who want a liberal democracy of peace and tolerance that has overwhelming support? Face it, the majority would go with a Hamas or Hamas-style dictatorship if given a chance. That's the political culture there. Democracy is pretty scarce on the ground in that part of the world.
They are not hidden at all :huh:
Quote from: grumbler on March 14, 2024, 11:30:22 AMThe latest PO poll I saw with Palestinians saw the majority favoring no solution at all, having given up hope of any solution whatsoever.
Yeah well, I see no reason to disagree with them.
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2024, 11:47:34 AMQuote from: grumbler on March 14, 2024, 11:30:22 AMThe latest PO poll I saw with Palestinians saw the majority favoring no solution at all, having given up hope of any solution whatsoever.
Yeah well, I see no reason to disagree with them.
Yeah, it's hard to support a proposed solution when none is currently viable.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 14, 2024, 11:44:09 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2024, 11:20:14 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 14, 2024, 10:10:11 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2024, 09:24:31 AMThe slogan isn't "Palestinians will be free" It is "Palestine will be free". They don't want freedom in the western sense anymore than the Afghanis who supported the Taliban wanted freedom. It is a nationalist call.
I'm impressed you have an understanding of what every single Palestinian, and every single Palestinian supporter believes. It must've taken years of research for you to come to that kind of understanding.
Of course I jest, this thread is devolving into hyperbole.
So are you holding out hope that there is some hidden faction of Palestinians who want a liberal democracy of peace and tolerance that has overwhelming support? Face it, the majority would go with a Hamas or Hamas-style dictatorship if given a chance. That's the political culture there. Democracy is pretty scarce on the ground in that part of the world.
They are not hidden at all :huh:
What's the name of this faction?
Quote from: grumbler on March 14, 2024, 11:30:22 AMPublic opinion polls have historically consistently shown that a majority of Palestinians prefer a two-state solution with a liberal democratic Palestine. You won't find that majority today, because their women and children are being murdered. Similarly, public opinion polls have historically consistently shown that a majority of Israelis prefer a two-state solution with a liberal democratic Palestine. You won't find that majority today, because their women and children were murdered.
The latest PO poll I saw with Palestinians saw the majority favoring no solution at all, having given up hope of any solution whatsoever.
"historically" Like in 1948? 1967? 1973? The Palestinians only began to come around to a two state solution when the Arab armies had failed and their allies had abandoned them. Even then it was often pitched as a "truce" not a peace.
This poll from '21 shows only 39% support for a two state solution. 59% are opposed. 16% supported a one state solution where Jews and Arabs had equal rights. Long before the current war.
Opps, forgot the poll https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/866
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2024, 12:11:18 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 14, 2024, 11:44:09 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2024, 11:20:14 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 14, 2024, 10:10:11 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2024, 09:24:31 AMThe slogan isn't "Palestinians will be free" It is "Palestine will be free". They don't want freedom in the western sense anymore than the Afghanis who supported the Taliban wanted freedom. It is a nationalist call.
I'm impressed you have an understanding of what every single Palestinian, and every single Palestinian supporter believes. It must've taken years of research for you to come to that kind of understanding.
Of course I jest, this thread is devolving into hyperbole.
So are you holding out hope that there is some hidden faction of Palestinians who want a liberal democracy of peace and tolerance that has overwhelming support? Face it, the majority would go with a Hamas or Hamas-style dictatorship if given a chance. That's the political culture there. Democracy is pretty scarce on the ground in that part of the world.
They are not hidden at all :huh:
What's the name of this faction?
Palestinian people.
Yeah, we've been banking on Middle East adopting a tolerant democracy for 20 years now. You know, like Iraq. Or Syria. Or Libya. Or Afghanistan. Take Egypt as example. They're right next door. What did the people do there as soon the reins were loosened? They went Islamist and the army over threw the government.
Quote from: grumbler on March 14, 2024, 11:13:22 AMQuote from: viper37 on March 14, 2024, 10:05:54 AM(snip of bogus Wiki article)
Who's inventing what?
Whatever person wrote that wiki article (maybe Josq) is inventing that history. The referenced article for the claim isn't written by D. G. Kelley and doesn't even mention Kelly.
Don't use Wiki as an authoritative source. Use Wiki only to find the actual source (which, AFAICT, does not exist for this claim).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Israel
That is a thing. It was a thing when Israel was created, and it was a debate just before the revolution. Nothing of the sort was used, and nothing too religious was used in the foundation texts because the creation of Israel was to be a stepping stone until all of Eretz Israel belonged to the Jewish people. That was very clear from the beginning, only docile Palestinians would be allowed to remain.
You can argue about the specific words, but it's always been there on the Israeli side and then moved on the Palestinian side as Israel gained most of the territory.
https://www.972mag.com/btselem-israel-apartheid-supremacy/
Personally, I don't have a problem with the slogan, anymore than
Black Lives Matters.
Some will misuse it, and you could argue ad infinitum that
All lives matters, but it's rather pointless. A political slogan is a political slogan. There is nothing wrong per se with
Make American Great Again. What you mean by that, what you intend to do with that political will is what is wrong.
Yes We Can coming from Obama, and
Yes we can coming from Trump would not have the same meaning.
From the river to the sea is just the same. Israelis used a variation of it to justify expelling Palestinians from their lands. Then Palestinians appropriated the slogan to justify their military and terrorist actions to expel Israelis from their lands and regain it.
Some use it to express the desire of a one state solution, others the dream of a Palestinian State, free of Israeli colonization. Hamas use it for something else, obviously. Raz believes all Palestinians belong the Hamas. He's entitles to his racist shitty views, like every Maga believers. I'll have the last laugh.
Unless you are a mind reader, it's extremely difficult to know which individual means what when he express the slogan. I'm sure we see the slogan with Nazi symbols, I'm sure we see the slogan with other racist actions, but that does not make everyone who oppose Israel policies a vicious anti-semite that dream of reopening the camps.
If only people shouted comprehensive peace plans during demonstrations.
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 14, 2024, 05:21:37 PMIf only people shouted comprehensive peace plans during demonstrations.
Et tu, Oex?
I would settle for shouting what you mean and standing behind the word coming out of your own mouth.
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 14, 2024, 05:21:37 PMIf only people shouted comprehensive peace plans during demonstrations.
Well that wouldn't work. Vagueness is key to keep a movement going. Once you have to get everybody to agree about fishing rights it all falls apart.
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 14, 2024, 05:21:37 PMIf only people shouted comprehensive peace plans during demonstrations.
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 14, 2024, 06:05:49 PMI would settle for shouting what you mean and standing behind the word coming out of your own mouth.
That's what they are doing, regardless of what the chanters intend the meaning to be.
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 14, 2024, 05:21:37 PMIf only people shouted comprehensive peace plans during demonstrations.
If only people didn't shout counterproductive nonsense during demonstrations. I've never understood the mob mentality that makes those kinds of demonstrators determined to make as many enemies for their cause as possible, just in order to feel morally superior themselves.
Quote from: viper37 on March 14, 2024, 04:57:53 PM(snip of long rambling exposition that doesn't seem to make any points other than to invent a new history for a slogan)
There's zero evidence that the "from the river, to the sea, [political entity] will be free" was originally a Jewish slogan that was then appropriated by the Palestinians. The first documented uses were by Palestinians, and it's pretty clear that what they were calling for is exactly what their phrasing said that they were calling for (and no, that does not seem to have been genocide or ethnic cleansing, even in the mouths of Hamas). The Israeli right began using it much later, and in the ethnic cleansing sense.
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 14, 2024, 05:21:37 PMIf only people shouted comprehensive peace plans during demonstrations.
Seems pretty straight forward. Palestine from the river to the sea, Israel gone.
Defund Israel!
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2024, 10:45:24 PMDefund Israel!
I mean the almost 4 billion annually that the US provides does seem unnecessary :unsure:
Quote from: Valmy on March 14, 2024, 10:45:24 PMDefund Israel!
Well, if the US did that it might make the far right in Israel a bit less belligerent.
The Iron Dome would stop working and those rockets would fall on Israel killing more civilians. I'm sure that would make some people happy.
Quote from: HVC on March 14, 2024, 10:49:03 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 14, 2024, 10:45:24 PMDefund Israel!
I mean the almost 4 billion annually that the US provides does seem unnecessary :unsure:
Indeed. I unironically think that would by an effective slogan.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2024, 11:10:52 PMThe Iron Dome would stop working and those rockets would fall on Israel killing more civilians. I'm sure that would make some people happy.
Well maybe they shouldn't have consistently elected this Bibi fucker who has systematically undermined our foreign policy goals. Either play ball with our two state solution or go it alone.
Chuck Schumer called for ousting Netanyahu and electing someone else. I guess even his patience wore thin.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 14, 2024, 11:10:52 PMThe Iron Dome would stop working and those rockets would fall on Israel killing more civilians. I'm sure that would make some people happy.
If that's the criteria the US would save more civilians giving that money to the Ukraine or Haiti, for example. Israel isn't a poor country.
Now see, "defund Israel" is a chant I wouldn't have trouble with. It's clear and even if you don't agree with it, it's a valid demand/proposal to make. Crucially it doesn't directly involve eradicating a country from the map.
The Iron Dome system is not reliant on US funding. The war on Gaza (as it is currently being carried out) probably is. The Israeli government has had to add US$15B to its defense budget since the war started, which is why the US House wants to send another US$14B in aid this year (in addition to the almost US$4 billion already allocated).
The US has provided substantial resources for the Iron Dome
https://www.bbc.com/news/57170576
QuoteSince 2011, the US has contributed a total of $1.6bn (£1.1bn) to the Iron Dome defence system.
And here's another billion
https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-house-approves-1-billion-for-israels-iron-dome-after-months-long-delay/
Whether or not the Iron Dome is "reliant" on US aid is probably a state secret and not something we can know. We do know that large amounts of US money go toward it.
Money is fungible. If the US didn't provide the $160 million/year for Iron Dome (money sent in return for Israel sharing its ABM and antimissile technology and operational experience) Israel could easily have redirected other money to Iron Dome. The Israeli defense budget was a bit more than $23B in 2022. How big is Israel's military and how much funding does it get from the US? (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/11/how-big-is-israels-military-and-how-much-funding-does-it-get-from-the-us)
Israel would need to reallocate one-sixth of one percent of its defense budget to cover the loss of US funding for Iron Dome.
QuoteIsrael is the most significant recipient of US foreign aid, having received some $263bn between 1946 and 2023.
I wonder how much Israel got in 1946.
The Green Book does not break out aid to Israel separately from the world data until 1951, so specifics before that are not readily available.
I doubt withdrawing economic aid would actually help lower civilian losses.
The IDF would simply use cheaper weapons (more arty and conventional bombs vs precision ones). They would also probable speed up operations to get their people to their civilian jobs faster. And that would mean more civilian losses, not less. Finally, it would remove the last bit of leverage anyone has over them. Biden is behind all the ceasefire negotiations.
The apparent ferocity by which Hamas is defending it seems to indicate this was more than just a hospital.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/18/clashes-idf-hamas-israel-takes-control-key-al-shifa-hospital
Quote from: Razgovory on March 15, 2024, 10:16:13 AMQuoteIsrael is the most significant recipient of US foreign aid, having received some $263bn between 1946 and 2023.
I wonder how much Israel got in 1946.
None, it didn't exist yet.
That was my point.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2024, 10:03:57 AMThat was my point.
I don't either, where's my money :P
The Oscars business going on.
Jesus that response. So amazingly brain dead. Kind of Putinesque in the whole "we know you know we are talking bollocks but what you gonna do about it. Make a peep and you're an anti semite"
Really misses an open goal too in calling out the Israeli =Jewish thing.
Quote from: Iormlund on March 15, 2024, 02:32:15 PMI doubt withdrawing economic aid would actually help lower civilian losses.
The IDF would simply use cheaper weapons (more arty and conventional bombs vs precision ones). They would also probable speed up operations to get their people to their civilian jobs faster. And that would mean more civilian losses, not less. Finally, it would remove the last bit of leverage anyone has over them. Biden is behind all the ceasefire negotiations.
This is an argument an author in FP made, that Israel likely becomes more dangerous and violent if the U.S. cuts off aid--for one, in the immediate sense that ends America's significant leverage on Israel. It leaves us with an Israel whose population is still vehemently opposed to making peace whilst Hamas remains in control of Gaza and holds hostages. Recent evidence has shown no regime on earth can meaningfully be stopped from getting weapons--there are always people willing to sell.
There will never be actual Western intervention militarily against Israel, nor does any form of Arab intervention seem remotely possible. Israel would then almost certainly feel pressure to escalate dramatically, probably conduct its Rafah clearing operation, and declare some form of victory.
It is a false narrative that the U.S. with the stroke of a pen can make Israel stop fighting a war.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2024, 10:03:57 AMThat was my point.
The statement was "between 1946 and 2024" not "from 1946 to 2024." The data aggregation used might not have distinguished by year, so the (say) 1946-1950 total would have included 1946 by default even if no money went to a country that did not exist in 1946.
Quote from: Josquius on March 19, 2024, 10:43:30 AMThe Oscars business going on.
Jesus that response. So amazingly brain dead. Kind of Putinesque in the whole "we know you know we are talking bollocks but what you gonna do about it. Make a peep and you're an anti semite"
Really misses an open goal too in calling out the Israeli =Jewish thing.
I haven't heard anything about the Oscars, what happened? They failed to demand a ceasefire?
Quote from: Tamas on March 19, 2024, 11:22:41 AMQuote from: Josquius on March 19, 2024, 10:43:30 AMThe Oscars business going on.
Jesus that response. So amazingly brain dead. Kind of Putinesque in the whole "we know you know we are talking bollocks but what you gonna do about it. Make a peep and you're an anti semite"
Really misses an open goal too in calling out the Israeli =Jewish thing.
I haven't heard anything about the Oscars, what happened? They failed to demand a ceasefire?
Jonathan Glazer. Jewish director of Zone of Interest won an award and said.
Quote"All our choices were made to reflect and confront us in the present, not to say look what they did then, but rather look what we do now," he said, according to the Academy's official transcript of the speech. "Our film shows where dehumanization leads at its worst. It's shaped all of our past and present. Right now, we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people. Whether the victims of October — whether the victims of October the 7th in Israel or the ongoing attack on Gaza, all the victims of this dehumanization, how do we resist?"
Plenty that could be criticised about the speech but rather than a sensible response instead we get an angry letter from a group packed with massive ignorance/misinformation and stuff which just highlights his point.
Quote"We refute our Jewishness being hijacked for the purpose of drawing a moral equivalence between a Nazi regime that sought to exterminate a race of people and an Israeli nation that seeks to avert its own extermination," the open letter state
The use of words like 'occupation' to describe an indigenous Jewish people defending a homeland that dates back thousands of years and has been recognized as a state by the United Nations, distorts history."
The first paragraph is largely fair enough, a nazi comparison is harsh, though the context wasn't out of nowhere - it's a Jewish guy who just got an award for a Holocaust film, so kind of a forced comparison.
But then it goes down hill. Israel is just trying to stop it's own extermination? Indigenous Jewish people defending a homeland that dates back thousands of years. Fucking hell. That's exactly the kind of shit that makes it really hard to stay neutral.
Glazer could have phrased that waaaay better. I understand what he's getting at, gotta understand the lessons of the past and not seeing the humanity in the "other" will always lead to tragedy, but a parallel with the nazis was always going to go up like a lead balloon, and deservedly so.
The backlash he's getting seems really excessive, though, and the letter is weird.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 19, 2024, 11:02:54 AMIt is a false narrative that the U.S. with the stroke of a pen can make Israel stop fighting a war.
Probably not. But the US did end apartheid in South Africa more or less with the stroke of a pen.
Quote from: Josquius on March 19, 2024, 02:24:10 PMBut then it goes down hill. Israel is just trying to stop it's own extermination?
That's a defensible characterization of the October 7 attack and the Israeli response.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2024, 03:40:47 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 19, 2024, 11:02:54 AMIt is a false narrative that the U.S. with the stroke of a pen can make Israel stop fighting a war.
Probably not. But the US did end apartheid in South Africa more or less with the stroke of a pen.
F.W. de Klerk ended apartheid, not the United States. I think your analysis of those events is severely off base.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 19, 2024, 04:40:39 PMF.W. de Klerk ended apartheid, not the United States. I think your analysis of those events is severely off base.
Before the US threatened trade sanctions apartheid existed. After it ended. My analysis is there was a causal connection. If you think this analysis is flawed please feel free to explain why you think so.
I would counter you haven't actually demonstrated the U.S. "ended apartheid with the stroke of a pen." The onus is on someone making a positive claim to produce at least some veneer of evidence for it, if one is so inclined. I would note that many countries suffer much worse economic sanctions than South Africa ever did and don't change domestic policy over it. And de Klerk himself said his primary motivation for ending apartheid was he felt South Africa was moving towards an outright racial civil war.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 19, 2024, 04:40:39 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2024, 03:40:47 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 19, 2024, 11:02:54 AMIt is a false narrative that the U.S. with the stroke of a pen can make Israel stop fighting a war.
Probably not. But the US did end apartheid in South Africa more or less with the stroke of a pen.
F.W. de Klerk ended apartheid, not the United States. I think your analysis of those events is severely off base.
The White South Africans were forced into it. Any analysis that pretends that they did it because they wanted to his not only off base it's a severe distortion of history.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 19, 2024, 04:53:35 PMI would counter you haven't actually demonstrated the U.S. "ended apartheid with the stroke of a pen." The onus is on someone making a positive claim to produce at least some veneer of evidence for it, if one is so inclined. I would note that many countries suffer much worse economic sanctions than South Africa ever did and don't change domestic policy over it. And de Klerk himself said his primary motivation for ending apartheid was he felt South Africa was moving towards an outright racial civil war.
I accept the onus and produced my evidence.
I would point out that countries face the threat of much milder economic sanctions than South Africa and do change policy. The example that comes to mind is Belgium. Belgium passed a law that allowed them to arrest US personnel for alleged war crimes. The US threatened to remove all military personnel from NATO headquarters and relocate the HQ. Belgium changed the law.
Domestic protests, violent clashes with police, and guerilla incursions were already baked into the equation. As I believe were trade and investment embargoes from other countries. Up to the point the US changed tack these factors had not succeeded in dismantling apartheid. After the US change in policy apartheid did end.
I don't know if white South Africans were 99% ready to end apartheid before the threat or 0% ready. I don't know how to answer that question and if I could interview every Boer alive at that I wouldn't know how to figure out if they were telling the truth. But I do know one external factor changed and then policy changed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2024, 03:47:04 PMQuote from: Josquius on March 19, 2024, 02:24:10 PMBut then it goes down hill. Israel is just trying to stop it's own extermination?
That's a defensible characterization of the October 7 attack and the Israeli response.
The attack?
Ish? In the same way taking down a rogue shooter is defending the entire country - if they hadn't got him he'd have killed everyone eventually!
But the scale is too off to take it seriously beyond a local level which the phrasing seems to imply.
Now though? Israel is trying to stop it's own extermination by grinding it's neighbour to dust?
Yeah.... The time has long since past where Israel could claim to be merely defending itself.
Quote from: Josquius on March 19, 2024, 05:44:25 PMThe attack?
Ish? In the same way taking down a rogue shooter is defending the entire country - if they hadn't got him he'd have killed everyone eventually!
But the scale is too off to take it seriously beyond a local level which the phrasing seems to imply.
Now though? Israel is trying to stop it's own extermination by grinding it's neighbour to dust?
Yeah.... The time has long since past where Israel could claim to be merely defending itself.
Hamas exterminated as many people as their resources allowed them to. If your point is Hamas does not have the capacity at present to kill every single Israeli then I agree. If your point is that Hamas is unwilling to kill every single Israeli then I don't see much evidence for that in their recent actions.
Quote from: Josquius on March 19, 2024, 05:44:25 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2024, 03:47:04 PMQuote from: Josquius on March 19, 2024, 02:24:10 PMBut then it goes down hill. Israel is just trying to stop it's own extermination?
That's a defensible characterization of the October 7 attack and the Israeli response.
The attack?
Ish? In the same way taking down a rogue shooter is defending the entire country - if they hadn't got him he'd have killed everyone eventually!
But the scale is too off to take it seriously beyond a local level which the phrasing seems to imply.
Now though? Israel is trying to stop it's own extermination by grinding it's neighbour to dust?
Yeah.... The time has long since past where Israel could claim to be merely defending itself.
Over a thousand dead in a matter of hours and hundreds kidnapped. That's not what I'd call "But the scale is too off to take it seriously beyond a local level" in any country let alone one the size and history of Israel. I am not even sure how you can conclude it wasn't a serious attack on the country.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2024, 05:59:40 PMHamas exterminated as many people as their resources allowed them to. If your point is Hamas does not have the capacity at present to kill every single Israeli then I agree. If your point is that Hamas is unwilling to kill every single Israeli then I don't see much evidence for that in their recent actions.
What would happen if, say, the US and the international community where to really turn a blind eye to Israel? The way we all turned a blind eye to Russia before Ukraine, the way we do toward China?
No consequences. Do whatever you want, we we sill supply weapons and do commerce with you. No one will have sanctions. Everyone in the country will be free to travel wherever they want.
What would have happened under these conditions?
They're already annexing the West Bank as fast as they can go. Would they have gone to Gaza faster?
Quote from: viper37 on March 19, 2024, 06:55:43 PMWhat would happen if, say, the US and the international community where to really turn a blind eye to Israel? The way we all turned a blind eye to Russia before Ukraine, the way we do toward China?
No consequences. Do whatever you want, we we sill supply weapons and do commerce with you. No one will have sanctions. Everyone in the country will be free to travel wherever they want.
What would have happened under these conditions?
They're already annexing the West Bank as fast as they can go. Would they have gone to Gaza faster?
Your rhetoric confuses the hell out of me. I was very much under the impression you thought "turning a blind eye" was already what the US was doing now.
So to attempt to answer your confusing question I think in the absence of sanctions travel restrictions etc. they would do exactly what they are doing now, because that describes the current situation.
Quote from: Tamas on March 19, 2024, 06:41:28 PMOver a thousand dead in a matter of hours and hundreds kidnapped. That's not what I'd call "But the scale is too off to take it seriously beyond a local level" in any country let alone one the size and history of Israel. I am not even sure how you can conclude it wasn't a serious attack on the country.
That only happened because there was a bunch of incompetent morons put in charge by the actual government. Warning signs had been there for about a year. All ignored by everyone who was in a position of doing something. Egypt had warned them, the US had warned them, their own IDF soldiers and intelligence agencies had warned them.
But stealing Arab lands and killing Arabs was just too fun for Bibi and his bunch, and many people are defending the policy choices of blinding themselves to these attacks. Israeli civilians paid the price because the army that was supposed to protect them was elsewhere.
In Montreal, there was a huge fire in an AirBnB. People were quick to point out the deficiencies of the AirBnB: It's and AirBnB. That in itself was an Evil Act. Emergency stairs were not up to the code. There was no fire exit, only windows. Some rooms did not have windows. Except for the stairs, none of this was criminal. But it's an AirBn'B. So the owner was dragged in the mud (he might have deserved it still, but not for that). He was called a murdered because there were people dying in his apartment. The left was, obviously, screaming bloody murder: the lodging crisis and the uncontrolled AirBn'B led to the death of poor students. Evil Mega Corporation from the US should be banned from Montreal. Capitalism at its worst.
The police later revealed they were opening a criminal investigation. They found traces of fire accelerant on the walls of the AirBn'B unit.
This is what Israel is doing: putting fire accelerant on a tense situation. Sending its firemen squads on the other side of the country. And then complaining there's a fire killing people and torching everyone and everything in sight. With some people applauding the gesture because they apparently deserved it. Like with AirBn'B. They deserved it, they removed space from the rental market. They had to be torched. The people inside? They made the wrong choice. They were complicit in the crimes. There's no real way to know for sure. The dead don't speak.
This war will only stop once there are no more Palestinians in Israel. Once every Palestinian resisting the occupation have been expelled, Israel will turn its sight on those who are not resisting and who have the Israeli citizenship. It's already in the plans of the most extremist factions, it will make its way to the mainstream factions. Just like the rest of the policies did.
Quote from: Josquius on March 19, 2024, 05:44:25 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2024, 03:47:04 PMQuote from: Josquius on March 19, 2024, 02:24:10 PMBut then it goes down hill. Israel is just trying to stop it's own extermination?
That's a defensible characterization of the October 7 attack and the Israeli response.
The attack?
Ish? In the same way taking down a rogue shooter is defending the entire country - if they hadn't got him he'd have killed everyone eventually!
But the scale is too off to take it seriously beyond a local level which the phrasing seems to imply.
Now though? Israel is trying to stop it's own extermination by grinding it's neighbour to dust?
Yeah.... The time has long since past where Israel could claim to be merely defending itself.
So how many dead Jews before it starts to become a problem?
Quote from: viper37 on March 19, 2024, 07:10:44 PM<snip>
Also if they didn't dress slutty they would not have been raped.
Viper lost me. Are the Israelis the people in the AirBnB or...?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2024, 05:21:10 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 19, 2024, 04:53:35 PMI would counter you haven't actually demonstrated the U.S. "ended apartheid with the stroke of a pen." The onus is on someone making a positive claim to produce at least some veneer of evidence for it, if one is so inclined. I would note that many countries suffer much worse economic sanctions than South Africa ever did and don't change domestic policy over it. And de Klerk himself said his primary motivation for ending apartheid was he felt South Africa was moving towards an outright racial civil war.
I accept the onus and produced my evidence.
I would point out that countries face the threat of much milder economic sanctions than South Africa and do change policy. The example that comes to mind is Belgium. Belgium passed a law that allowed them to arrest US personnel for alleged war crimes. The US threatened to remove all military personnel from NATO headquarters and relocate the HQ. Belgium changed the law.
Domestic protests, violent clashes with police, and guerilla incursions were already baked into the equation. As I believe were trade and investment embargoes from other countries. Up to the point the US changed tack these factors had not succeeded in dismantling apartheid. After the US change in policy apartheid did end.
I don't know if white South Africans were 99% ready to end apartheid before the threat or 0% ready. I don't know how to answer that question and if I could interview every Boer alive at that I wouldn't know how to figure out if they were telling the truth. But I do know one external factor changed and then policy changed.
The decision was made by the South African government, not by any American, and they were not "forced." Force would imply actual force, which certainly did not happen.
There was increasing economic pressure, but it was the decision of the NP how they wished to respond to it. I will note that virtually no country in Asia sanctioned South Africa, virtually no country in South America or the Middle East.
They had many avenues to conduct trade and support their economy—and as a major mining country their exports were fungible commodities that could easily get to market.
The biggest blow from U.S. and British combined sanctions was being cut off from Western finance mechanisms—but I will note virtually the entire Communist bloc worked around that for the whole Cold War.
Cuba and the DPRK work around stifling sanctions to this day (while the main country sanctioning Cuba is only the United States, due to Cuba's limited economic production and how tightly all of its industries were tied to the U.S. it has never been able to replace its previous American tied); but ultimately the leaders of those regimes decided the pain of sanctions was acceptable.
F.W. de Klerk certainly factored economic sanctions into his decision making, but describing that as "America ending apartheid with a simple sanctions decision" is ludicrous and false.
The NP had made limited attempts at working out a settlement of apartheid as far back as the 1970s (well before meaningful British or American sanctions), it was widely viewed as an unsustainable system due to basic demographics, the NP just always had deep disagreements about the parameters of winding it down vs the costs of maintaining it.
Quote from: Tamas on March 19, 2024, 07:30:04 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 19, 2024, 07:10:44 PM<snip>
Also if they didn't dress slutty they would not have been raped.
Always a terrible analogy people dredge up and stretch to odd situations.
In that situation the rapist is obviously bad. Nobody thinks different.
Though drinking too much and running around in a dark and empty park whilst clearly dressed like they're stumbling home from the nightclub and the girl is clearly stapling a victim in the making sign to her chest. Taking basic precautions for your safety is just common sense.
What Israel have done here has slight aspects of that - only it's innocent people who get hurt rather than the shitty decision makers - but more than that they've decided since a man in that park raped their sister that one awful night they now have to murder everyone who goes anywhere near that park after 5pm.
A really warped analogy but then vipers was better.
It feels like we have now jumped the shark and Jos/Viper have clearly demonstrated they will only say vile, crazy things about this conflict.
Quote from: Josquius on March 20, 2024, 12:40:10 AMQuote from: Tamas on March 19, 2024, 07:30:04 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 19, 2024, 07:10:44 PM<snip>
Also if they didn't dress slutty they would not have been raped.
Always a terrible analogy people dredge up and stretch to odd situations.
In that situation the rapist is obviously bad. Nobody thinks different.
Though drinking too much and running around in a dark and empty park whilst clearly dressed like they're stumbling home from the nightclub and the girl is clearly stapling a victim in the making sign to her chest. Taking basic precautions for your safety is just common sense.
What Israel have done here has slight aspects of that - only it's innocent people who get hurt rather than the shitty decision makers - but more than that they've decided since a man in that park raped their sister that one awful night they now have to murder everyone who goes anywhere near that park after 5pm.
A really warped analogy but then vipers was better.
Ok, so in your example is it the girl's fault or the rapist's fault that she got raped?
My problem with Viper's post wasn't that he called out supposed mistakes in Israeli security policies, nor that he criticised Bibi (who, I have repeatedly written, is a great risk and should be in prison), but rather that his whole post was reeking of switching blame, responsibility, even agency, from the Palestinians actually doing the murdering raping and kidnapping, onto the people being murdered, raped and kidnapped.
Quote from: Tamas on March 20, 2024, 03:39:11 AM[quote author=Jo
Ok, so in your example is it the girl's fault or the rapist's fault that she got raped?
My problem with Viper's post wasn't that he called out supposed mistakes in Israeli security policies, nor that he criticised Bibi (who, I have repeatedly written, is a great risk and should be in prison), but rather that his whole post was reeking of switching blame, responsibility, even agency, from the Palestinians actually doing the murdering raping and kidnapping, onto the people being murdered, raped and kidnapped.
This is similar to the typical right wing "personal responsibility" use of this analogy.
All that matters is immediate crime and punishment. This guy did something bad and he did that entirely by his own choice thus that's the only thing to consider in tackling crime.
The typical left wing view on the other hand would look at things more holistically. Less into waiting for crime to naturally happen then reacting.
Obviously the criminal committed a crime and should be punished. This is rarely in any doubt whatsoever. However this is done and the most important thing to look at going forward is the root causes of the crime, what secondary responsibility of people failing to do their job was at play, and how we can address these to stop it happening again.
In this case obviously the 7th October attacks were bad. It's daft to suggest this is in question.
However there absolutely were massive failings from the Israeli side and there should be a case from the victims/their families against the state.
Additionally that a crime was committed in October doesn't give the people who fucked up so massively in doing their job of ensuring public safety carte blanche to kill thousands of innocents just because they live in the same place as the attackers.
Quotelook at going forward is the root causes of the crime, what secondary responsibility of people failing to do their job was at play, and how we can address these to stop it happening again.
Right, so Israel has concluded the root cause is Hamas' stranglehold on Gaza giving them the resources and opportunities to put their twisted agenda into action, and they are addressing this by (trying to) ensure Hamas' power is destroyed regardless of the collateral damage.
Just because you don't agree with the conclusions of the RCA it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Quote from: Tamas on March 20, 2024, 04:16:06 AMQuotelook at going forward is the root causes of the crime, what secondary responsibility of people failing to do their job was at play, and how we can address these to stop it happening again.
Right, so Israel has concluded the root cause is Hamas' stranglehold on Gaza giving them the resources and opportunities to put their twisted agenda into action, and they are addressing this by (trying to) ensure Hamas' power is destroyed regardless of the collateral damage.
Just because you don't agree with the conclusions of the RCA it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Yes. The people who fucked up have came to some conclusions that wonderfully reward them with just what they wanted, turning what should have been a damning fuck up for them into a big opportunity - and damn the human comsequences
It's comparable to but considerably worse than Thatcher with the Falklands. At least she didn't seek to conquer Argentina.... And there weren't British settlers already In Argentina continuing to report to london.
Quote from: Josquius on March 20, 2024, 05:12:03 AMQuote from: Tamas on March 20, 2024, 04:16:06 AMQuotelook at going forward is the root causes of the crime, what secondary responsibility of people failing to do their job was at play, and how we can address these to stop it happening again.
Right, so Israel has concluded the root cause is Hamas' stranglehold on Gaza giving them the resources and opportunities to put their twisted agenda into action, and they are addressing this by (trying to) ensure Hamas' power is destroyed regardless of the collateral damage.
Just because you don't agree with the conclusions of the RCA it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Yes. The people who fucked up have came to some conclusions that wonderfully reward them with just what they wanted, turning what should have been a damning fuck up for them into a big opportunity - and damn the human comsequences
It's comparable to but considerably worse than Thatcher with the Falklands. At least she didn't seek to conquer Argentina.... And there weren't British settlers already In Argentina continuing to report to london.
A couple of things: while -again- you obviously have a valid point that own failings need to be reviewed in cases like this, I am not comfortable with your and Viper's primary focus on it. At the end of the day there was a very simple solution to avoid all these deaths on October 7: Palestinians not committing the murders. All other solutions to avoid them are more complex and uncertain in results. Your view on it does feel very much like victim-blaming.
And on the Falklands: I shouldn't be surprised you think it's Thatcher's fault the hapless agency-less Argentinians invaded the island. :lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 19, 2024, 05:05:26 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 19, 2024, 04:40:39 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2024, 03:40:47 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 19, 2024, 11:02:54 AMIt is a false narrative that the U.S. with the stroke of a pen can make Israel stop fighting a war.
Probably not. But the US did end apartheid in South Africa more or less with the stroke of a pen.
F.W. de Klerk ended apartheid, not the United States. I think your analysis of those events is severely off base.
The White South Africans were forced into it. Any analysis that pretends that they did it because they wanted to his not only off base it's a severe distortion of history.
You are way over-generalizing. The white South Africans were comprised of a large set of disparate people with disparate views on Apartheid. Any analysis that fails to acknowledge this is not only off base it's a severe distortion of history.
US policy on Apartheid led to trade sanctions in 1986 (the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act). South Africa adopted a democratic constitution in 1993. Someone claiming a causal link needs to demonstrate why it took so long and none of the intervening events were the actual causes, if the CAAA was supposed to be
the cause.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 19, 2024, 11:02:54 AMIt is a false narrative that the U.S. with the stroke of a pen can make Israel stop fighting a war.
I do not disagree. However the intention of not sending money to the Israelis is not to control their behavior.
Quote from: garbon on March 20, 2024, 02:00:13 AMIt feels like we have now jumped the shark and Jos/Viper have clearly demonstrated they will only say vile, crazy things about this conflict.
Ish.
Quote from: grumbler on March 20, 2024, 05:48:54 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 19, 2024, 05:05:26 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 19, 2024, 04:40:39 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2024, 03:40:47 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 19, 2024, 11:02:54 AMIt is a false narrative that the U.S. with the stroke of a pen can make Israel stop fighting a war.
Probably not. But the US did end apartheid in South Africa more or less with the stroke of a pen.
F.W. de Klerk ended apartheid, not the United States. I think your analysis of those events is severely off base.
The White South Africans were forced into it. Any analysis that pretends that they did it because they wanted to his not only off base it's a severe distortion of history.
You are way over-generalizing. The white South Africans were comprised of a large set of disparate people with disparate views on Apartheid. Any analysis that fails to acknowledge this is not only off base it's a severe distortion of history.
US policy on Apartheid led to trade sanctions in 1986 (the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act). South Africa adopted a democratic constitution in 1993. Someone claiming a causal link needs to demonstrate why it took so long and none of the intervening events were the actual causes, if the CAAA was supposed to be the cause.
White South Africans were the ones who ended apartheid. That is why I said white South Africans. Pretending that other South Africans end apartheid is ridiculous.
Almost as ridiculous as pretending that the actions of the United States and the UK didn't play a role in the decision of White South Africans to end apartheid.
Quote from: Valmy on March 20, 2024, 08:22:32 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 19, 2024, 11:02:54 AMIt is a false narrative that the U.S. with the stroke of a pen can make Israel stop fighting a war.
I do not disagree. However the intention of not sending money to the Israelis is not to control their behavior.
Well, intentions vary, right? I see a lot of leftist reddit types saying Biden can end the war by cutting Israel off. So for at least some section of people there is that view of it.
But even from a game theory perspective, cutting off Israeli aid likely reduces U.S. ability to control Israel's behavior, not increase, so it would be at cross purpose to the goals espoused by those advocating for it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2024, 08:59:53 AMWhite South Africans were the ones who ended apartheid. That is why I said white South Africans. Pretending that other South Africans end apartheid is ridiculous.
I specifically said F.W. de Klerk, because that is factual, but it did involve more than just him and more than just whites. There was a negotiation process between the ANC and the NP, the NP would likely not have agreed to a democratic constitution without a consultative process. A lot of NP hardliners had fears the ANC would do things they deeply opposed (the ANC was linked to communist powers historically, so there was a fear they might attempt to make post-apartheid South Africa into a communist state--which did not happen and there were negotiations around many of those key points.)
Quote from: Tamas on March 19, 2024, 07:30:04 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 19, 2024, 07:10:44 PM<snip>
Also if they didn't dress slutty they would not have been raped.
You can be as moronic as Raz when you want to.
Quote from: Josquius on March 20, 2024, 12:40:10 AMAlways a terrible analogy people dredge up and stretch to odd situations.
In that situation the rapist is obviously bad. Nobody thinks different.
On October 7 50% of Gazans and 75% of West Bankers thought different.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 20, 2024, 09:32:29 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2024, 08:59:53 AMWhite South Africans were the ones who ended apartheid. That is why I said white South Africans. Pretending that other South Africans end apartheid is ridiculous.
I specifically said F.W. de Klerk, because that is factual, but it did involve more than just him and more than just whites. There was a negotiation process between the ANC and the NP, the NP would likely not have agreed to a democratic constitution without a consultative process. A lot of NP hardliners had fears the ANC would do things they deeply opposed (the ANC was linked to communist powers historically, so there was a fear they might attempt to make post-apartheid South Africa into a communist state--which did not happen and there were negotiations around many of those key points.)
I haven't looked it up, but that sounds accurate. But the point remains that apartheid would not have ended if the White South Africans had not decided to do so. Would they have come to that conclusion eventually on their own? Maybe. But the fact is the were pushed to do it by the actions of the international community and the US and UK in particular.
And if you want to get deeper into the historical record, the US president and the UK Prime Minister were reluctant to act (especially Thatcher) but Mulroney convinced them to do that right thing.
Quote from: grumbler on March 20, 2024, 05:48:54 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 19, 2024, 05:05:26 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 19, 2024, 04:40:39 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2024, 03:40:47 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 19, 2024, 11:02:54 AMIt is a false narrative that the U.S. with the stroke of a pen can make Israel stop fighting a war.
Probably not. But the US did end apartheid in South Africa more or less with the stroke of a pen.
F.W. de Klerk ended apartheid, not the United States. I think your analysis of those events is severely off base.
The White South Africans were forced into it. Any analysis that pretends that they did it because they wanted to his not only off base it's a severe distortion of history.
You are way over-generalizing. The white South Africans were comprised of a large set of disparate people with disparate views on Apartheid. Any analysis that fails to acknowledge this is not only off base it's a severe distortion of history.
US policy on Apartheid led to trade sanctions in 1986 (the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act). South Africa adopted a democratic constitution in 1993. Someone claiming a causal link needs to demonstrate why it took so long and none of the intervening events were the actual causes, if the CAAA was supposed to be the cause.
I think it's also a mistake to say that it was only the white south africans who ended apartheid.
Would apartheid have ended if Nelson Mandela continued to be a violent revolutionary after his release? Instead de Klerk and others seemed generally impressed that Mandela was committed to a peaceful transfer to majority rule and to a multi-racial future for south africa.
To come back to Israel that's one of the differences here. When it comes to Gaza is there a Mandela-like figure with whom Israel can negotiate with?
Oof, so much revisionism. Mandela refused the conditions of his release and that is why he had to wait until 1990 when he was released unconditionally.
In 1991 Mandela signed a peace accord in which both "his side" and the NP (and various associated groups with each) agreed to an end to violence going forward. There was still violence for the next few years, but Mandela worked to stamp it out even within his own side. If Mandela had committed to eternal violence in 1991 it is unlikely de Klerk and the ANC would have made agreements, the situation likely would have lead to civil war and probably a fracturing of the country along geographical racial lines.
The comparison to Israel-Palestine breaks down badly in this respect, as no Palestinian leader has ever meaningfully controlled the violence on their side. Most have not meaningfully denounced it. The ANC side was far more open to genuine peace negotiations and longer term commitment to a shared society.
The Palestinians want land that is currently filled with Jews, and they largely want the Jews removed from that land so they can have it. It is a far harder problem because what the two sides want is very directly oppositional. In South Africa the blacks main goal was a democratic society. Some wanted major forced redistribution of white lands and even retribution against whites for apartheid, but their leadership was willing to back off most of the extreme positions.
The white side wanted a strict federal system where the mostly white western half of the country (much of that half being very low density ranches / farms) would have near-autonomy, but the ANC was not willing to concede that much, they insisted on a unitary system with no Federalism. The sides compromised on a system that met roughly in the middle. That sort of compromise has largely never been meaningfully pursued w/Israel-Palestine other than arguably during brief periods in which Oslo was believed to be a path forward, but it appears the Palestinians never really accepted Oslo, and the Israelis only did as a people very briefly before a lot of them turned hard against it.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 20, 2024, 11:59:21 AMIn 1991 Mandela signed a peace accord in which both "his side" and the NP (and various associated groups with each) agreed to an end to violence going forward. There was still violence for the next few years, but Mandela worked to stamp it out even within his own side. If Mandela had committed to eternal violence in 1991 it is unlikely de Klerk and the ANC would have made agreements, the situation likely would have lead to civil war and probably a fracturing of the country along geographical racial lines.
The comparison to Israel-Palestine breaks down badly in this respect, as no Palestinian leader has ever meaningfully controlled the violence on their side. Most have not meaningfully denounced it. The ANC side was far more open to genuine peace negotiations and longer term commitment to a shared society.
The Palestinians want land that is currently filled with Jews, and they largely want the Jews removed from that land so they can have it. It is a far harder problem because what the two sides want is very directly oppositional. In South Africa the blacks main goal was a democratic society. Some wanted major forced redistribution of white lands and even retribution against whites for apartheid, but their leadership was willing to back off most of the extreme positions.
The white side wanted a strict federal system where the mostly white western half of the country (much of that half being very low density ranches / farms) would have near-autonomy, but the ANC was not willing to concede that much, they insisted on a unitary system with no Federalism. The sides compromised on a system that met roughly in the middle. That sort of compromise has largely never been meaningfully pursued w/Israel-Palestine other than arguably during brief periods in which Oslo was believed to be a path forward, but it appears the Palestinians never really accepted Oslo, and the Israelis only did as a people very briefly before a lot of them turned hard against it.
I also agree with all of that.
But the critical point is that Mandela agreed after he had been released, and as I stated before, he had been released without conditions because by 1990 the international pressure on South Africa had become intense.
That where there is a parallel with what is happening in Israel, unless there is international pressure on Israel, the extreme right wing in that country will continue to be unrestrained in their actions. And a two state solution will be impossible.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2024, 08:59:53 AMWhite South Africans were the ones who ended apartheid. That is why I said white South Africans. Pretending that other South Africans end apartheid is ridiculous.
Almost as ridiculous as pretending that the actions of the United States and the UK didn't play a role in the decision of White South Africans to end apartheid.
White South Africans were among those who ended Apartheid. Apartheid ended (as Otto notes above) as a result of an agreement between the South African government and the ANC. Pretending that no non-white South Africans were involved in the end of apartheid is ridiculous.
Almost as ridiculous as arguing that the involvement of outside powers (including the US and UK, but not limited to them) is anything but a truism and a strawman argument.
Quote from: grumbler on March 20, 2024, 12:08:36 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2024, 08:59:53 AMWhite South Africans were the ones who ended apartheid. That is why I said white South Africans. Pretending that other South Africans end apartheid is ridiculous.
Almost as ridiculous as pretending that the actions of the United States and the UK didn't play a role in the decision of White South Africans to end apartheid.
White South Africans were among those who ended Apartheid. Apartheid ended (as Otto notes above) as a result of an agreement between the South African government and the ANC. Pretending that no non-white South Africans were involved in the end of apartheid is ridiculous.
Almost as ridiculous as arguing that the involvement of outside powers (including the US and UK, but not limited to them) is anything but a truism and a strawman argument.
Well, there is at least some progress, you are at least now realizing that White South Africans were one of the parties. Now go all the way and come the realization that White South Africans were the ones giving up their power.
Quote from: grumbler on March 20, 2024, 12:08:36 PMWhite South Africans were among those who ended Apartheid. Apartheid ended (as Otto notes above) as a result of an agreement between the South African government and the ANC. Pretending that no non-white South Africans were involved in the end of apartheid is ridiculous.
Almost as ridiculous as arguing that the involvement of outside powers (including the US and UK, but not limited to them) is anything but a truism and a strawman argument.
I feel like you're missing part of your last sentence.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2024, 12:10:14 PMWell, there is at least some progress, you are at least now realizing that White South Africans were one of the parties. Now go all the way and come the realization that White South Africans were the ones giving up their power.
Well, there is at least some progress, you are at least now realizing that White South Africans were one of the parties. Now go all the way and come the realization that white South Africans were not the
only party in the negotiations that led to the post-Apartheid constitution (and, in fact, begin to realize that anti-apartheid white South Africans did, indeed, exist).
Quote from: Barrister on March 20, 2024, 12:10:53 PMQuote from: grumbler on March 20, 2024, 12:08:36 PMWhite South Africans were among those who ended Apartheid. Apartheid ended (as Otto notes above) as a result of an agreement between the South African government and the ANC. Pretending that no non-white South Africans were involved in the end of apartheid is ridiculous.
Almost as ridiculous as arguing that the involvement of outside powers (including the US and UK, but not limited to them) is anything but a truism and a strawman argument.
I feel like you're missing part of your last sentence.
If I cut it out the parenthetical, it reads "Almost as ridiculous as arguing that the involvement of outside powers is anything but a truism and a strawman argument." CC makes statements like "pretending that the actions of the United States and the UK didn't play a role in the decision of White South Africans to end apartheid" as if anyone is actually pretending that. Contrarians cannot resist strawman/truism arguments when their intellectual arguments cannot carry their side.
Such an odd argument. Of course like any big geo-political events there were many parties involved.
It's like the Russians claiming they won WWII. I mean sure they played a big part - but I suspect the outcome owuld have been different if the west wasn't supplying lend-lease aid and tieing down troops in Africa, the Battle of Britain, Italy and then France.
de Klerk and the National Party deserve credit for deciding to sign an agreement and end white rule. Mandela and the ANC deserve credit for negotiating a deal that was respectful of some white south african concerns. International pressure deserves credit. Anti-apartheid white south africans deserve credit. Other black south african parties deserve credit for respecting the deal as well (even if critical of portions). I'm sure there are others I'm missing.
This whole digression started with me basically saying (paraphrasing): "The United States doesn't have the power to just stop a war with purely soft power actions like cutting off aid or imposing economic sanctions."
Yi (also paraphrasing): "The U.S. did basically end apartheid that way."
Me (para): "No, F.W. de Klerk ended apartheid, the U.S. didn't cause it."
My assumption is that it was understood that yes, external economic pressures were certainly a "factor" in de Klerk's decision making. But pretending that soft power pressure, essentially "overnight" ended apartheid is simply not true. It also creates the wrong impression that you can achieve such ends via soft power. In fact, people often reference the "successful campaign" of using soft power against apartheid South Africa as the epitome of successful uses of soft power.
Many of those same people are often frustrated and confused that soft power continues to fail, time and time again, in many similar circumstances. This is because soft power really doesn't achieve things like that on its own. It can contribute to a desired outcome, but it basically never creates that outcome.
I think apartheid was unique in comparison to many other "intractable problems" we attempt to influence via soft power because of a number of important factors, and understanding them probably helps to understand why no, it wasn't just U.S. sanction that caused it to fall apart, and why it isn't a magic winning strategy to solve Israel-Palestine or any other similar conflict.
1. Apartheid was imposed by a very small demographic minority on a very large majority. For most of the 20th century, the white population was relatively stable at around 20% of the national population, by 1990 it was already obvious demographics were going to exacerbate the situation. The white population had shrunk to a bit under 18%, not a huge drop--but remember, it had been stable at around 20% for almost 100 years prior. The black population had very high birth rates compared to the white. This was not a topic the white South Africans were ignorant of, or unconcerned about--they were certainly well aware of this. It should go without saying a shrinking minority has obvious logistical / practical concerns in continuing to perpetuate such a system.
2. Apartheid was not uncontroversial among the ruling minority population. There was white opposition to apartheid going back at least 30-40 years before it ended, and that opposition had actually been steadily growing. In the 70s and 80s around 15-20% of white voters were voting for an anti-apartheid party--when you are already a small and shrinking minority, internal dissension among your own side puts you in a precarious position. It should be noted in 1989, the last South African elections held under apartheid, de Klerk had made it clear he planned to lead the NP in the direction of compromise and negotiation with anti-apartheid groups like the ANC. This lead to hardline anti-reform Afrikaners forming a breakaway absolutist pro-apartheid party they simply labeled the "Conservative Party", in the elections, the NP won ~48%, the conservatives 31%, and the traditional leftist/progressive white opposition won around 15%. This means in the final apartheid era elections in which only whites could vote, the support for maintaining apartheid no matter what fell to around 31%, when that was the governing platform of the majority party (the NP) for its prior existence. This shows significant general fatigue / distaste etc for apartheid even among the white population. While there are some minority groups that rule large majorities (like Assad as an Alawite in Syria) it is very hard for a minority that allows democratic participation of its own group, to maintain such rule when its own group is not united in that sort of rule. (Guys like Assad are minority group dictators, so don't have to worry about that aspect of losing popular support among Alawites.)
3. The Harare declaration which was adopted in 1989 by the ANC and some other resistance groups was very important. Previously, all of these groups had maintained they would more or less utilize "any means necessary" to resist apartheid, including fighting using all forms of force possible. This created a scenario where it was often seen by white South Africans as them against violent, armed people who were non-whites and "coming for them." The Harare declaration didn't completely foreswear violence (that didn't come until the peace agreement a few years later), but it made clear the ANC was willing to negotiate and form a multiethnic democracy--remember that for much of its existence the ANC was somewhat backed by international communist forces and was more or less not making any promises--creating fears that if they ever came to power it would be like what happened when the whites lost their civil war in Zimbabwe--mass seizure of white lands and an angry black revolutionary government ready to get payback for years of being repressed. The ANC and other groups in the Harare declaration committed to this not being their governing mindset.
3 is really important in large part, when talking about things like Israel-Palestine, because it shows more reasonableness and willingness to compromise than any meaningful portion of Palestinians have ever shown. The entire conflict would be far different if that was a typical Palestinian position instead of a niche one virtually never held by any Palestinian armed groups.
Iranian Official Calls to Expel Israel From Women's Rights Conference (https://www.fdd.org/analysis/flash-briefs/2024/03/12/iranian-official-calls-to-expel-israel-from-womens-rights-conference/)
QuoteLatest Developments
A senior Iranian official on March 11 called for the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) to expel Israel from its ranks. In a speech before the commission's 68th annual gathering, Iranian Vice President for Women and Family Affairs Ensieh Khazali falsely accused Israel of "rape and murder of millions of women and children" and claimed that women in Iran have seen "rapid progress" since the Islamic Revolution.
Khazali's address comes just days after the UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights released a report saying that Iran's "violent repression of peaceful protests and pervasive institutional discrimination against women and girls" has led to human rights violations, some of which amount to "crimes against humanity." In December 2022, Iran's treatment of women and girls following the regime's killing of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini led the UN Economic and Social Council to vote 29-8, with 16 abstentions, to remove Iran from the CSW for the remainder of its term on the commission, which would have lasted until 2026. Despite Iran's expulsion, the commission allowed Khazali to address it.
Expert Analysis
"If the UN wants to be viewed as a serious body with the power to improve the lives of women and girls around the world, it needs to rethink who appears on its stage. At a time when women in the Islamic Republic face harsh punishment for dancing in public, attending sports events at stadiums, or dressing as they wish, providing a platform to Ms. Khazali, who used it to deflect attention from her government's pervasive women's rights abuses, makes a mockery of the CSW." — Toby Dershowitz, Managing Director at FDD Action
"The last place the Islamic Republic should be is a meeting in New York City at the Commission on the Status of Women. Granting a visa for a regime official like Khazali, who promotes regime propaganda on the hijab, the Mahsa Amini protests, and the gender segregation that exists in Iranian law, is an own goal for the United States, particularly as Washington claims to stand with Iranian women, dissidents, and protestors."
Go Iran! You tell them! :P :P
I'm not sure we have the same definition of progress as them though.
The rapid progress towards benefiting from the wisdom of the Islamic Republic.
Quote from: Valmy on March 21, 2024, 09:39:35 AMThe rapid progress towards benefiting from the wisdom of the Islamic Republic.
Free sex-change operations for homosexuals. Take that decadent imperialist countries! :D
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on March 21, 2024, 12:25:47 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 21, 2024, 09:39:35 AMThe rapid progress towards benefiting from the wisdom of the Islamic Republic.
Free sex-change operations for homosexuals. Take that decadent imperialist countries! :D
The cool kind of conversion therapy.
Russia and China veto US resolution calling for immediate cease fire and release of all hostages.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 22, 2024, 10:10:51 AM
Russia and China veto US resolution calling for immediate cease fire and release of all hostages.
I eagerly await Owen Jones' and Corbyn's condemnation of China and Russia.
Quote from: Tamas on March 22, 2024, 11:13:37 AMI eagerly await Owen Jones' and Corbyn's condemnation of China and Russia.
Hell Corbyn didn't even condemn Russia for invading Ukraine right?
You don't bite the hand that feeds you, Valmy.
Quote from: Tamas on March 20, 2024, 05:30:51 AMQuote from: Josquius on March 20, 2024, 05:12:03 AMQuote from: Tamas on March 20, 2024, 04:16:06 AMQuotelook at going forward is the root causes of the crime, what secondary responsibility of people failing to do their job was at play, and how we can address these to stop it happening again.
Right, so Israel has concluded the root cause is Hamas' stranglehold on Gaza giving them the resources and opportunities to put their twisted agenda into action, and they are addressing this by (trying to) ensure Hamas' power is destroyed regardless of the collateral damage.
Just because you don't agree with the conclusions of the RCA it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Yes. The people who fucked up have came to some conclusions that wonderfully reward them with just what they wanted, turning what should have been a damning fuck up for them into a big opportunity - and damn the human comsequences
It's comparable to but considerably worse than Thatcher with the Falklands. At least she didn't seek to conquer Argentina.... And there weren't British settlers already In Argentina continuing to report to london.
A couple of things: while -again- you obviously have a valid point that own failings need to be reviewed in cases like this, I am not comfortable with your and Viper's primary focus on it. At the end of the day there was a very simple solution to avoid all these deaths on October 7: Palestinians not committing the murders. All other solutions to avoid them are more complex and uncertain in results. Your view on it does feel very much like victim-blaming.
And on the Falklands: I shouldn't be surprised you think it's Thatcher's fault the hapless agency-less Argentinians invaded the island. :lol:
Again you're taking a very right wing view of "fault" here.
Obviously Argentina were the ones who invaded thus at fault.
However at the same time Thatcher's fuck ups amounted to basically leaving an open goal for them. Its really shit how she continues to get let off the hook for this with people instead praising her for the war that a more competent PM wouldn't have had to face (indeed didn't...and that under a PM who is widely not considered particularly competent).
Obviously Hamas and co were the ones who attacked. They were the rapists (literally in many cases). But the actions of the Israeli government in the lead up also seem to tick a lot of boxes for downright criminal negligence.
On a much bigger and more abstract level it also cannot be ignored that Israeli policy over recent decades created the situation that bred this extremism (e.g. their support for Hamas) and if they'd been interested in actual workable peace with the Palestinians this wouldn't have happened.
"Right-wing" seems to be Squeeze's go-to insult. Imagine using your argument in another context.
"Yeah, the Israeli settler are taking the land but the Palestinians are leaving an open goal for them. Palestinian terrorism and ethnic hatred has resulted in growing extremism in Israel. If the Palestinians wanted peace this would not have happen."
Quote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2024, 01:26:00 PM"Right-wing" seems to be Squeeze's go-to insult. Imagine using your argument in another context.
"Yeah, the Israeli settler are taking the land but the Palestinians are leaving an open goal for them. Palestinian terrorism and ethnic hatred has resulted in growing extremism in Israel. If the Palestinians wanted peace this would not have happen."
Ah sure.
If Israelis get attacked, it's because the Palestinians are evil.
If Palestinians get attacked, it's because the Palestinians are evil and deserved it.
If lands get seized, it's the because the Palestinians are evil and deserved to be expelled.
Shorthand: you hate Palestinians as a people.
There's a word for it. It escapes me.
Israel's largest West Bank seizure during Blinken's visit (https://www.spaywall.com/news/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/03/22/israel-largest-west-bank-settlement-blinken-visit/)
They totally deserved it. If only they weren't Palestinians.
Quote from: viper37 on March 23, 2024, 01:50:42 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2024, 01:26:00 PM"Right-wing" seems to be Squeeze's go-to insult. Imagine using your argument in another context.
"Yeah, the Israeli settler are taking the land but the Palestinians are leaving an open goal for them. Palestinian terrorism and ethnic hatred has resulted in growing extremism in Israel. If the Palestinians wanted peace this would not have happen."
Ah sure.
If Israelis get attacked, it's because the Palestinians are evil.
If Palestinians get attacked, it's because the Palestinians are evil and deserved it.
If lands get seized, it's the because the Palestinians are evil and deserved to be expelled.
Shorthand: you hate Palestinians as a people.
There's a word for it. It escapes me.
I'm guessing you didn't read the post I was responding to. Go ahead and read it and apply you standard to that person.
Quote from: viper37 on March 23, 2024, 01:51:38 PMIsrael's largest West Bank seizure during Blinken's visit (https://www.spaywall.com/news/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/03/22/israel-largest-west-bank-settlement-blinken-visit/)
They totally deserved it. If only they weren't Palestinians.
I don't take much issue with it, frankly. The UN offered Israel and Palestine internationally arbitrated borders in 1947. The Arabs said no, we'll just murder all the Jews instead. They got their asses handed to them very, very badly, and began a multi-decade long crybaby fest about losing a war for a small sliver of the Middle East, when the vast majority of the region remains Arab controlled. The 1949 Armistice agreement
at the insistence of Egypt quite clearly said the armistice
was not any political acknowledgement of any official border by either side. The Arab side made it clear there are no legal borders.
After they again lost in 1967, Israel took more land, and continues to take more land today as the Palestinians continue to wage war.
The way I see it Palestine has chosen to settle the matter with war, and if you play by those rules the country losing the war loses the land. It's called "tough shit."
Arguing that Palestine chose war when it didn't even exist is silly. The Palestinians were as much victims of the war between Israel and its Arab neighbors as the Israelis were.
Israel is not blameless in the constant expansion if Israel's borders.
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2024, 05:46:59 PMArguing that Palestine chose war when it didn't even exist is silly. The Palestinians were as much victims of the war between Israel and its Arab neighbors as the Israelis were.
Israel is not blameless in the constant expansion if Israel's borders.
If it doesn't exist then there is even less reason for people to cry about Israel incorporating land that it controls as part of its country.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2024, 01:26:00 PM"Right-wing" seems to be Squeeze's go-to insult. Imagine using your argument in another context.
Its not an insult, its an accurate descriptor of the view.
As explained the right tend to view crimes as individual actions; here are the rules, follow them or else, that threat should keep everyone in line,
The left meanwhile tends to look at crime as a result of a variety of broader issues; commit a crime and you will be punished, but to stop anyone else doing the same we need to tackle the reasons why the crime was committed in the first place.
Quote"Yeah, the Israeli settler are taking the land but the Palestinians are leaving an open goal for them. Palestinian terrorism and ethnic hatred has resulted in growing extremism in Israel. If the Palestinians wanted peace this would not have happen."
The difference there is that Palestine can't not leave an open goal for the Israeli settlers. The second they try to resist in the slightest they get smashed.
Israel is the one with freedom of action in Palestine. It falls on them to be the one to make the big steps to stop the cycle of hate.
The UK with the Falklands on the other hand actively decided to cut the naval budget, withdraw forces from the South Atlantic, and ignore intelligence and very recent history around the threat in the area.
This was an active choice Thatcher freely made. The Palestinians are more akin to the Falkland islanders in this scenario.
Quote from: Josquius on March 23, 2024, 01:08:43 PMOn a much bigger and more abstract level it also cannot be ignored that Israeli policy over recent decades created the situation that bred this extremism (e.g. their support for Hamas) and if they'd been interested in actual workable peace with the Palestinians this wouldn't have happened.
I like many others here have read the one link about "Israel creating Hamas." It's a pile of shit. People have given me money, just like the Quataris did for Gaza, and it did not "breed" any extremism in me. People have allowed me to take a bus to work and it did not breed any extremism in me.
"If they'd been interested in actual workable peace with the Palestinians this wouldn't have happened." That's a more interesting proposition than the first.
Arafat launched the second intifada in response to the Israeli proposal at the Nye River meeting. Now I'm familiar with the Palestinian objections to the Israeli proposal, which I think we should keep in mind were not an end state but another interim step in the spirit of the Oslo Accords. Was the second intifada the act of a people who were committed to peaceful coexistence in a separate state of their own? Ambiguous at best IMO.
Then Mahmoud Abbas takes over the WB after Arafat steps down. I view him favorably because of my Bretton Woods bias. He seems to fulfill his end of the bargain. He's not committing violence against Israelis. That is when my support for Israel starts to erode.
Hamas wins a majority of parliamentary seat in Gaza, fights a brief civil war with the Palestinian Authority, and starts launching rockets at Israel. So they're just a radical fringe, right? Shouldn't derail the peace process, right? Various talking heads propose the narrative that in voting for Hamas the Gazans weren't endorsing violence but were just tired of corruption. Most people nod their heads in agreement. Then we essentially go into a news blackout on the opinions of everyday Palestinians. There are no elections, either in the West Bank or in Gaza, for people to voice their preferences for peace or war.
Then October 7 comes, Hamas murders 1,200, rapes however many, and abducts 250. And by an absolute historical miracle the same day a poll is conducted which shows a majority of Palestinians support Hamas. So it's impossible anymore to sustain the narrative that Palestinians are just peaceful people yearning for a two state solution.
Now you can claim Hamas felt compelled to commit violence in response to the stalled peace process. Is that a logical inference or is that a statement based on ideology, in other words a statement of faith? I'm a little murky on the timeline but I believe their charter predates the failure of the peace process. Do their attacks? I think so, not sure.
Quote from: Valmy on March 21, 2024, 12:27:00 PMQuote from: Duque de Bragança on March 21, 2024, 12:25:47 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 21, 2024, 09:39:35 AMThe rapid progress towards benefiting from the wisdom of the Islamic Republic.
Free sex-change operations for homosexuals. Take that decadent imperialist countries! :D
The somewhat kind of cool kind of conversion therapy.
Emphasis mine. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2024, 05:58:50 AMI like many others here have read the one link about "Israel creating Hamas." It's a pile of shit. People have given me money, just like the Quataris did for Gaza, and it did not "breed" any extremism in me. People have allowed me to take a bus to work and it did not breed any extremism in me.
Thats quite the strawman.
I never said that Israel created Hamas.
I've no idea what the people giving you money and taking busses have to do with anything.
Quote"If they'd been interested in actual workable peace with the Palestinians this wouldn't have happened." That's a more interesting proposition than the first.
Arafat launched the second intifada in response to the Israeli proposal at the Nye River meeting. Now I'm familiar with the Palestinian objections to the Israeli proposal, which I think we should keep in mind were not an end state but another interim step in the spirit of the Oslo Accords. Was the second intifada the act of a people who were committed to peaceful coexistence in a separate state of their own? Ambiguous at best IMO.
Then Mahmoud Abbas takes over the WB after Arafat steps down. I view him favorably because of my Bretton Woods bias. He seems to fulfill his end of the bargain. He's not committing violence against Israelis. That is when my support for Israel starts to erode.
Hamas wins a majority of parliamentary seat in Gaza, fights a brief civil war with the Palestinian Authority, and starts launching rockets at Israel. So they're just a radical fringe, right? Shouldn't derail the peace process, right? Various talking heads propose the narrative that in voting for Hamas the Gazans weren't endorsing violence but were just tired of corruption. Most people nod their heads in agreement. Then we essentially go into a news blackout on the opinions of everyday Palestinians. There are no elections, either in the West Bank or in Gaza, for people to voice their preferences for peace or war.
Then October 7 comes, Hamas murders 1,200, rapes however many, and abducts 250. And by an absolute historical miracle the same day a poll is conducted which shows a majority of Palestinians support Hamas. So it's impossible anymore to sustain the narrative that Palestinians are just peaceful people yearning for a two state solution.
Now you can claim Hamas felt compelled to commit violence in response to the stalled peace process. Is that a logical inference or is that a statement based on ideology, in other words a statement of faith? I'm a little murky on the timeline but I believe their charter predates the failure of the peace process. Do their attacks? I think so, not sure.
Again this is a strawman.
Saying Israel have to be interested in peace and make the big moves towards this doesn't at all equate to saying Palestinians are all sunshine and rainbows.
Its not a question of morality or goals or anything like that. Its purely a question of agency; Israel has a lot of it, the Palestinians do not.
Though it is definitely worth considering quite why support for violence is high amongst Palestinians- peace getting them nothing but a steady whittling away of their rights and their territory no doubt contributes.
Quote from: Josquius on March 24, 2024, 08:13:37 AMThats quite the strawman.
I never said that Israel created Hamas.
I've no idea what the people giving you money and taking busses have to do with anything.
Letting Qatari money in and letting Palestinians work in Israel were some of the things that the writer of that link mentioned as abetting the rise of Hamas. If by "breeding extremism" you meant other acts by Israel I apologize. Please tell me what you mean.
QuoteAgain this is a strawman.
Saying Israel have to be interested in peace and make the big moves towards this doesn't at all equate to saying Palestinians are all sunshine and rainbows.
Its not a question of morality or goals or anything like that. Its purely a question of agency; Israel has a lot of it, the Palestinians do not.
Though it is definitely worth considering quite why support for violence is high amongst Palestinians- peace getting them nothing but a steady whittling away of their rights and their territory no doubt contributes.
You said if Israel had been committed to peace this attack would not have happened. I gave you reasons why I think this, or similar attacks would have happened regardless of Israel's commitment to the two state solution. That is not a strawman. I am directly attacking your own assertion.
A couple of things to keep in mind re: Gaza and Hamas, though they might not be weighty enough to change anyone's conclusions:
1. Palestinians in Gaza did not elect Hamas. They elected the "Reform Slate" that included (but was not entirely comprised of) Hamas political leaders.
2. The Hamas coup in Gaza was tacitly supported by Israel, which refused to allow PA security forces to enter Gaza. It was clear at the time that the Israeli security officials were delighted by the resulting weakening of PA power.
Israel did not create Hamas, but neither did the Gazan people elect them as their government. Both groups, however, were willing to allow Hamas to rule Gaza.
Quote from: Josquius on March 24, 2024, 02:51:10 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2024, 01:26:00 PM"Right-wing" seems to be Squeeze's go-to insult. Imagine using your argument in another context.
Its not an insult, its an accurate descriptor of the view.
As explained the right tend to view crimes as individual actions; here are the rules, follow them or else, that threat should keep everyone in line,
The left meanwhile tends to look at crime as a result of a variety of broader issues; commit a crime and you will be punished, but to stop anyone else doing the same we need to tackle the reasons why the crime was committed in the first place.
Quote"Yeah, the Israeli settler are taking the land but the Palestinians are leaving an open goal for them. Palestinian terrorism and ethnic hatred has resulted in growing extremism in Israel. If the Palestinians wanted peace this would not have happen."
The difference there is that Palestine can't not leave an open goal for the Israeli settlers. The second they try to resist in the slightest they get smashed.
Israel is the one with freedom of action in Palestine. It falls on them to be the one to make the big steps to stop the cycle of hate.
The UK with the Falklands on the other hand actively decided to cut the naval budget, withdraw forces from the South Atlantic, and ignore intelligence and very recent history around the threat in the area.
This was an active choice Thatcher freely made. The Palestinians are more akin to the Falkland islanders in this scenario.
The Palestinians have plenty of freedom of action. October 7th demonstrated that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2024, 05:58:50 AMI like many others here have read the one link about "Israel creating Hamas." It's a pile of shit. People have given me money, just like the Quataris did for Gaza, and it did not "breed" any extremism in me. People have allowed me to take a bus to work and it did not breed any extremism in me.
If I give you money to take the bus and you take the bus, I am encouraging you to take the bus.
If I give you money to kill someone and you kill someone, what am I doing? Promoting alternative transportation?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2024, 01:56:51 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 23, 2024, 01:50:42 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2024, 01:26:00 PM"Right-wing" seems to be Squeeze's go-to insult. Imagine using your argument in another context.
"Yeah, the Israeli settler are taking the land but the Palestinians are leaving an open goal for them. Palestinian terrorism and ethnic hatred has resulted in growing extremism in Israel. If the Palestinians wanted peace this would not have happen."
Ah sure.
If Israelis get attacked, it's because the Palestinians are evil.
If Palestinians get attacked, it's because the Palestinians are evil and deserved it.
If lands get seized, it's the because the Palestinians are evil and deserved to be expelled.
Shorthand: you hate Palestinians as a people.
There's a word for it. It escapes me.
I'm guessing you didn't read the post I was responding to. Go ahead and read it and apply you standard to that person.
I'm just reading a pattern of your posts. Whatever happens to the Palestinians, they always deserve it.
Whenever the IDF or the colonists get attack, it's always terrorism.
Quote from: viper37 on March 24, 2024, 10:45:44 AMIf I give you money to kill someone and you kill someone, what am I doing? Promoting alternative transportation?
Are you saying this is what happened with the Quatari money? That Israel made a deal with Hamas that said we will allow this money to come into Gaza, but only if you kill some of our people?
Right Yi, the narrative they promote literally makes no sense, largely because it just isn't true.
Yes, Israelis deeply opposed to the two state solution had some short term view that keeping the PA out of power in Gaza was to their benefit, but that doesn't make it "their fault" that Hamas was in power in Gaza.
And when it became obvious back in 2008 there was not a combination of political will + international acceptance of Israel going back into Gaza to stamp Hamas out and reassert control for the PA, what exactly was Israel supposed to do? Block the strip off from all financial assistance, all humanitarian aid, all ability to get Israeli work permits etc til the end of time? The limitations on imports Israel did impose were already incredibly controversial and some people used them to call Gaza an "open air prison", the alternative path would be one where they let even less stuff go into Gaza between 2008 and 2023?
Whatever the motives of Israel's politicians, there was some element where letting things like Qatari aid and other things into the strip was just pragmatic, the situation would not have been better if Israel had sealed Gaza off for the last 16 years.
Like Yi, my views on the Israelis definitely "declined" in the 15 years leading up to October 7th, because I felt like the Israeli right had an extreme reaction to the 2nd Intifada and had become completely opposed to any workable peace.
But the more time that has passed since October 7th I've become more convinced that the broad international community really is just massively pre-disposed against Israel, is borderline pro-Hamas, and is resolved to punish Israel inexplicably for things that we largely ignore from far worse countries all the time. I have also become convinced that not only is a two state solution not possible, at this point I think my own belief in the two state solution and that being the position of the United States may actually not be the morally correct stance, either.
I have come to understand that Palestinian nationalism is very different from say, Kurdish nationalism--Kurdish nationalism is about a distinct group of people in a distinct region, who have lived there for a long time but have always been denied self-rule. Palestinian nationalism is actually a "negative" nationalism. It is a conception that only exists as an argument that Arabs "deserve" the land that Israel is on because Jews don't deserve it, and it is pretty clear they mean the entirety of the province of historical Palestine, which is the full deal from the Jordan river to the sea.
When you have two competing groups, and it is now obvious there can never be two states on the land, I think the international response has to be either:
1. Let them fight it out
2. Pick a side
I lean towards #1 all things being equal, but since Israel is a major non-NATO ally, and we know from actual reality that Israel treats its non-Jewish population far better than the Arabs would treat any Jewish population they control, the greater moral outcome would simply be for Israel to annex the entire West Bank, and simply make it clear that calls for a Palestinian state are not acceptable--no different than Turkiye's view on calls for the creation of Kurdistan, or Spain's views on attempts to create Catalonia.
I guess to me, the question has shifted: if a two state solution is impossible, which state do we want to exist there:
1. An Israel that may give some of the non-Jewish Arabs diminished rights of citizenship
2. A Palestine that will mass murder every Jew that doesn't immediately flee to the United States
This being the real world, there is no guarantee in a set of two options, either option is "good" or without serious problems, but you can still typically say which option is the lesser of two evils.
The "Israel promoted Hamas and thus Oct 7th is their fault" argument besides being untrue and morally bankrupt boils down to Israel not keeping its foot on Gaza throat firm enough. Would it be better if the Israelis let no food into Gaza? Shot anyone who came too close to the wire as a matter of course? During this period of promoting Hamas Israel bombed Hamas plenty of times. That doesn't seem to be much in the way of support.
Today is Purim, the celebration of another failed attempt to destroy the Jews.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 24, 2024, 10:34:07 AMQuote from: Josquius on March 24, 2024, 02:51:10 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2024, 01:26:00 PM"Right-wing" seems to be Squeeze's go-to insult. Imagine using your argument in another context.
Its not an insult, its an accurate descriptor of the view.
As explained the right tend to view crimes as individual actions; here are the rules, follow them or else, that threat should keep everyone in line,
The left meanwhile tends to look at crime as a result of a variety of broader issues; commit a crime and you will be punished, but to stop anyone else doing the same we need to tackle the reasons why the crime was committed in the first place.
Quote"Yeah, the Israeli settler are taking the land but the Palestinians are leaving an open goal for them. Palestinian terrorism and ethnic hatred has resulted in growing extremism in Israel. If the Palestinians wanted peace this would not have happen."
The difference there is that Palestine can't not leave an open goal for the Israeli settlers. The second they try to resist in the slightest they get smashed.
Israel is the one with freedom of action in Palestine. It falls on them to be the one to make the big steps to stop the cycle of hate.
The UK with the Falklands on the other hand actively decided to cut the naval budget, withdraw forces from the South Atlantic, and ignore intelligence and very recent history around the threat in the area.
This was an active choice Thatcher freely made. The Palestinians are more akin to the Falkland islanders in this scenario.
The Palestinians have plenty of freedom of action. October 7th demonstrated that.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2024, 08:23:14 AMLetting Qatari money in and letting Palestinians work in Israel were some of the things that the writer of that link mentioned as abetting the rise of Hamas. If by "breeding extremism" you meant other acts by Israel I apologize. Please tell me what you mean.
I can't find a post where I said breeding extremism so I really don't know what I could have meant if I said it.
I'm also not sure what link you're referring to. This NYT one?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html
It certainly sounds like the money coming in helped keep Hamas in power.
There's also the longer term issue that Israel supported Islamic extremism to keep Palestinians divided and counter left leaning Palestinian nationalism. Sort of like the US elsewhere in the middle east.
https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/
And the whole general situation of keeping an impoverished bantustan walled off right next door, occasionally taking pot shots at its civilians and bit by bit steadily stealing their cousins land... That doesn't exactly breed a friendly neighbour.
QuoteYou said if Israel had been committed to peace this attack would not have happened. I gave you reasons why I think this, or similar attacks would have happened regardless of Israel's commitment to the two state solution. That is not a strawman. I am directly attacking your own assertion.
You seem to neglect how Palestinians and Israelis aren't operating in a bubble.
Israeli policy impacts Palestinian policy impacts Israeli policy.
The Israeli government overnight magically having a sudden change of heart and declaring no more war, lets all have a proper piece now, wouldn't instantly cause Palestinians to flip position.
But steps in this direction will give the same on the other side.
If Israel is clearly and consistently dismantling settlements, trying to setup Palestine to be a proper state, and opening discussions of compensation for past property seizures then Palestinian opinion would shift with it.
You'd still get nutters who want complete genocide (in this scenario the Israeli equivalent have been magiced away), but support for them would drop off a cliff.
With the pre-October Israeli policy of doing a lot of what the zionist nutters wanted and continuing to brutalise the Palestinians, slowly but surely whittling away their land and freedoms.... well, is it any surprise groups like Hamas would get support and want to try something like the October attacks?- which makes it all the more damning that it apparently was a huge surprise to Israel even with all the short term warnings on top of the obvious fucked up situation.
:lol: You are so out of touch. :lol:
Here's what I don't get: Take a Christian nationalist, a really vile one. He believes that laws should be based on the Bible. He has no tolerance of secularism or other religions. He constantly is on the look out for even the faintest criticism of his religion. He believes that his race should rule supreme, other people as far as they are tolerated should defer to his people. He really, really hates the Jews. He believes the Holocaust was some sort of scheme by the Jews, if it ever happened, but by God he would like to finish to the job. It's not just in word, he attacks Jews on site if he can get away with it. He hates LGBT people and wants them executed. He praises those who kill LGBT people. In short, we would call him a fascist.
Now, take off his red cap, make him Muslim, and darken his skin slightly. Suddenly, leftists will support him. He's no longer a fascist he's a hero. He's also a pretty average Palestinian. It really fucking perplexes me.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 24, 2024, 06:56:07 PMNow, take off his red cap, make him Muslim, and darken his skin slightly. Suddenly, leftists will support him. He's no longer a fascist he's a hero. He's also a pretty average Palestinian. It really fucking perplexes me.
Well it is sort of like a protestant soldier in Germany during the 30 years war is defending freedom against a tyrannical emperor. As soon as the same guy goes to fight in Ireland suddenly he is a monstrous force for tyranny, despite the fact he is fighting for the exact same cause for the same reasons. His morality is entirely dependent on what dirt his feet are standing on. So if you are an antisemitic homophobic right wing religious reactionary fighting for Palestine well...
And I am not sure leftists are as universally supportive of right wing reactionary Muslims as you seem to think.
Quote from: Josquius on March 24, 2024, 05:19:07 PMI can't find a post where I said breeding extremism so I really don't know what I could have meant if I said it.
At the bottom of the previous page, page 205 on default settings, I quote your post in its entirety.
[woops, 2 pages back now]
QuoteThe Israeli government overnight magically having a sudden change of heart and declaring no more war, lets all have a proper piece now, wouldn't instantly cause Palestinians to flip position.
But steps in this direction will give the same on the other side.
Nye River was a step in the right direction. That produced the second intifada. Total withdrawal from Gaza was a step in the right direction. That produced rocket attacks and October 7. Your assertion is disproved.
Not all leftists of course, I don't for instance, but a significant number. I don't understand your counter-example.
In the United States a great deal revolves about race, and protesters in the US frequently frame the Palestinian situation as a struggle against white supremacy. Fascism is apparently not a function of what you do or what you believe but skin color and power level. The Jews are white so they can be fascist, while the Palestinians are people of color so they can't. That's my best guess.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 24, 2024, 07:43:53 PMNot all leftists of course, I don't for instance, but a significant number. I don't understand your counter-example.
In the United States a great deal revolves about race, and protesters in the US frequently frame the Palestinian situation as a struggle against white supremacy. Fascism is apparently not a function of what you do or what you believe but skin color and power level. The Jews are white so they can be fascist, while the Palestinians are people of color so they can't. That's my best guess.
That is roughly what I was getting at by my counter-example.
But for all that I do not trust the Palestinians, I don't wish any ill on them any more than I do American right wingers.
I think a part of it is just bigotry of low expectations.
Quote from: DGuller on March 24, 2024, 09:10:01 PMI think a part of it is just bigotry of low expectations.
Another is that muslims are often political allies of leftwing parties.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 24, 2024, 10:34:07 AMThe Palestinians have plenty of freedom of action. October 7th demonstrated that.
Freedom of action requires the use of deadly force?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2024, 07:42:20 PMQuote from: Josquius on March 24, 2024, 05:19:07 PMI can't find a post where I said breeding extremism so I really don't know what I could have meant if I said it.
At the bottom of the previous page, page 205 on default settings, I quote your post in its entirety.
[woops, 2 pages back now]
QuoteThe Israeli government overnight magically having a sudden change of heart and declaring no more war, lets all have a proper piece now, wouldn't instantly cause Palestinians to flip position.
But steps in this direction will give the same on the other side.
Nye River was a step in the right direction. That produced the second intifada. Total withdrawal from Gaza was a step in the right direction. That produced rocket attacks and October 7. Your assertion is disproved.
Your analysis holds if you ignore all the other events which occurred during the same period of time.
Come to think of it, that is the only way for your analysis to hold.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2024, 11:02:20 AMQuote from: viper37 on March 24, 2024, 10:45:44 AMIf I give you money to kill someone and you kill someone, what am I doing? Promoting alternative transportation?
Are you saying this is what happened with the Quatari money? That Israel made a deal with Hamas that said we will allow this money to come into Gaza, but only if you kill some of our people?
I'm not much into conspiracy theory, you know.
Israel knew very well what was the Quatari money used for. They knew perfectly well it wasn't used just for "reconstruction". They intercepted the guy with the money, interrogated him, and then let him go back to his business and let more money flow in.
Cash money going in Hamas territory. To rebuild stuff, apparently. And no buildings getting off the ground.
You could think, like some, that Israeli intelligence services are very stupid people, totally blind, and had no idea what was going on, and were poor innocent victims of everything, totally blindsided by evil, very smart terrorist organizations and their smart financial Qatari advisors.
Or, you could read the myriad of articles I've already posted on the subject here, detailing what happened in great details, with all the analysis, and the political decisions that were made by Bibi: let the Hamas get stronger because a terrorist organization in Gaza was better and a free Palestine in the West Bank.
Let them get a bit stronger, launch a missile strike and some aerial bombardment, rinse and repeat.
The government did not expect an attack of such viciousness to happen despite all the signs pointing at it. That's not a conspiracy theory, that's incompetence. Criminal incompetence, if you ask me. At the level, heads should roll at the top, and maybe not even figuratively.
Hamas was able to strike hard because the Israeli government did everything it could to strengthen Hamas and refused to listen to every warning it was given.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2024, 11:43:52 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 24, 2024, 10:34:07 AMThe Palestinians have plenty of freedom of action. October 7th demonstrated that.
Freedom of action requires the use of deadly force?
no comprendo, senior
Quote from: viper37 on March 25, 2024, 12:02:52 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2024, 11:02:20 AMQuote from: viper37 on March 24, 2024, 10:45:44 AMIf I give you money to kill someone and you kill someone, what am I doing? Promoting alternative transportation?
Are you saying this is what happened with the Quatari money? That Israel made a deal with Hamas that said we will allow this money to come into Gaza, but only if you kill some of our people?
I'm not much into conspiracy theory, you know.
Israel knew very well what was the Quatari money used for. They knew perfectly well it wasn't used just for "reconstruction". They intercepted the guy with the money, interrogated him, and then let him go back to his business and let more money flow in.
Cash money going in Hamas territory. To rebuild stuff, apparently. And no buildings getting off the ground.
You could think, like some, that Israeli intelligence services are very stupid people, totally blind, and had no idea what was going on, and were poor innocent victims of everything, totally blindsided by evil, very smart terrorist organizations and their smart financial Qatari advisors.
Or, you could read the myriad of articles I've already posted on the subject here, detailing what happened in great details, with all the analysis, and the political decisions that were made by Bibi: let the Hamas get stronger because a terrorist organization in Gaza was better and a free Palestine in the West Bank.
Let them get a bit stronger, launch a missile strike and some aerial bombardment, rinse and repeat.
The government did not expect an attack of such viciousness to happen despite all the signs pointing at it. That's not a conspiracy theory, that's incompetence. Criminal incompetence, if you ask me. At the level, heads should roll at the top, and maybe not even figuratively.
Hamas was able to strike hard because the Israeli government did everything it could to strengthen Hamas and refused to listen to every warning it was given.
You are absolutely right. The Israelis should have kept their foot on Gaza's neck. No money in. No work permits. Nothing.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2024, 11:45:28 AMYour analysis holds if you ignore all the other events which occurred during the same period of time.
Come to think of it, that is the only way for your analysis to hold.
Yeah I was going to say there are a few missing events in there :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on March 25, 2024, 12:28:19 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2024, 11:43:52 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 24, 2024, 10:34:07 AMThe Palestinians have plenty of freedom of action. October 7th demonstrated that.
Freedom of action requires the use of deadly force?
no comprendo, senior
You used an armed force of terrorists to prove a claim that all Palestinians have freedom of action.
Do you not see how absurd that is?
I didn't say that it requires use of deadly force. The Palestinians can act. They have agency. They are not just a passive group.
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2024, 12:51:40 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2024, 11:45:28 AMYour analysis holds if you ignore all the other events which occurred during the same period of time.
Come to think of it, that is the only way for your analysis to hold.
Yeah I was going to say there are a few missing events in there :lol:
:yes:
Yi does seem to prefer simple cause-effect linkages that "prove" his point, even when the effect (Palestinian rockets into Israel, starting in 2001) precede their causes (Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, 2005).
Quote from: Razgovory on March 25, 2024, 12:57:56 PMI didn't say that it requires use of deadly force. The Palestinians can act. They have agency. They are not just a passive group.
Other than the use of deadly force by terrorists, can you give an example of where Palestinians have the sort of agency you are describing?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2024, 12:59:38 PMQuote from: Razgovory on March 25, 2024, 12:57:56 PMI didn't say that it requires use of deadly force. The Palestinians can act. They have agency. They are not just a passive group.
Other than the use of deadly force by terrorists, can you give an example of where Palestinians have the sort of agency you are describing?
They seem quite adroit in propaganda, they've gotten plenty of supporters among the nations of the world.
I will say this--with Biden abstaining today and letting this shameful UNSC resolution be issued against Israel, he has lost my vote. And since I don't believe in voting third party, I guess that means I will be a reluctant Trump voter. He has time to win me back, but if Biden believes he can kow tow to the Hamas wing of the party (e.g. extreme bigots like Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar) he must be made to pay a price.
Obviously my one vote doesn't matter in a state almost certain to vote for Biden anyway.
QuoteThe White House suggests Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to manufacture a crisis in US-Israel ties after canceling plans to send an Israeli delegation to Washington over the Biden administration's decision to allow the adoption of a UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate Gaza ceasefire and hostage release.
Netanyahu said the US abstention marked a divergence from Washington's policy linking a ceasefire to Hamas releasing the hostages it abducted on October 7, but US officials asserted that this wasn't their interpretation of the resolution and that their position in favor of that conditionality has not changed.
"It seems like the Prime Minister's Office is choosing to create a perception of daylight here when they don't need to do that," White House National Security Council John Kirby said in a press briefing.
Amazingly duplicitous bullshit from Biden's administration. His behavior is entirely craven nonsense to appeal to a craven, toxic left wing of his own party. Biden is choosing to stand with Muslim activist groups in America who 100% support terrorism and extremism and murder of Jews in order to get votes. One of the most feckless decisions by any American President, he has no room to say someone is pandering to domestic politics, he is pandering to Muslim terrorists for votes. I hope Trump obliterates him in November.
So much froth over a UN vote. Great that we have voters on both sides who will vote in US elections based on a neverending conflict in the Middle East...
It is more than just a UN vote, it shows where Biden's priorities lie--and it is with extremist Muslim terrorist supporting left wingers like Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar because he is afraid of the voters they represent. I don't vote for cowards who stand with terrorists for votes.
I was wondering when Otto would find the excuse, no matter how flimsy, that would allow him to openly support Trump without looking like a chump. :lol:
Everyone wins as a result of the UNSC resolution, should a way be found to actually implement it: Palestinians and most Israelis will be glad to see the killing of civilians stop, Netanyahu gets to stop a war that grew more unsavory by the day while pretending that it is only force majeure that stops him, and Otto gets to go back to MAGAland while pretending that only force majeure drove him there.
I don't know if abstaining from one toothless UN vote is quite the Carte Blanche for terrorism you think it is.
Guess Otto hates Arabs more then he hates Russians :D
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 25, 2024, 07:28:40 PMIt is more than just a UN vote, it shows where Biden's priorities lie--and it is with extremist Muslim terrorist supporting left wingers like Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar because he is afraid of the voters they represent. I don't vote for cowards who stand with terrorists for votes.
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/044/247/297.png)
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2024, 07:39:26 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 25, 2024, 07:28:40 PMIt is more than just a UN vote, it shows where Biden's priorities lie--and it is with extremist Muslim terrorist supporting left wingers like Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar because he is afraid of the voters they represent. I don't vote for cowards who stand with terrorists for votes.
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/044/247/297.png)
That's how Jihadi Joe Biden will look when he is being rolled out of the White House next January.
Can anyone tell me what is the difference between this resolution and the one the US sponsored a few days ago?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2024, 07:53:09 PMCan anyone tell me what is the difference between this resolution and the one the US sponsored a few days ago?
Fundamentally they do seem the same :hmm:
Cease fire plus release of hostages. Maybe the difference was the order of events?
Five American citizens are held hostage still and the Biden administration has betrayed them with allowing a UNSC resolution to pass that does not make a ceasefire conditional on their release. Their all but certain deaths are entirely at Biden's feet now.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 25, 2024, 08:14:34 PMFive American citizens are held hostage still and the Biden administration has betrayed them with allowing a UNSC resolution to pass that does not make a ceasefire conditional on their release. Their all but certain deaths are entirely at Biden's feet now.
Yeah well...we'll see. I don't know if Hamas is that obedient to the UNSC. I don't think this vote changes anything.
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2024, 09:07:29 PMYeah well...we'll see. I don't know if Hamas is that obedient to the UNSC. I don't think this vote changes anything.
I agree with Otto that's a much different signal than the previous proposal. The previous one said if Hamas wants nice things done to them they have to do nice things to others.
I of course disagree with him about the optimal response of private citizens.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2024, 09:35:44 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 25, 2024, 09:07:29 PMYeah well...we'll see. I don't know if Hamas is that obedient to the UNSC. I don't think this vote changes anything.
I agree with Otto that's a much different signal than the previous proposal. The previous one said if Hamas wants nice things done to them they have to do nice things to others.
I of course disagree with him about the optimal response of private citizens.
Again will either side in this conflict abide by the signal? Besides, it seems to the statement by the Biden Administration that our position has not changed is a signal that we still regard the situation being that Hamas must turn over the hostages for the cease fire to go into effect.
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2024, 10:12:12 PMAgain will either side in this conflict abide by the signal? Besides, it seems to the statement by the Biden Administration that our position has not changed is a signal that we still regard the situation being that Hamas must turn over the hostages for the cease fire to go into effect.
Nice syntax brosef.
Israel is certainly taking the signal seriously. They threw a temper tantrum.
Biden can try to spin it any way he wants but the signal has already been sent that the "international community" insists on a ceasefire and thinks it would be really nice if the hostages were handed over.
I agree the resolution is substantively different. However, by its terms the demanded ceasefire is only in place until April 9. It's hard to believe that the period between now and April 9 would have been the magic moment where the hostages would have been recused absent the ceasefire and I am extremely skeptical that the planned military operations have some essential strategic rationale that would be fatally compromised if they occurred in early April as opposed to late March. The resolution could work in Israel's favor if they were to comply as if Hamas fails to comply, it will reduce pressure on Israel if it then resumes hostilities after Ramadan. Of course that assumes Israel respects it . . .
That's not so bad.
There you go Otto. Now you can vote for Biden again.
Otto, you sound exactly like the hyperbolic pan-Muslims and leftists in the UK and the US now except for the other side.
If you indeed are going to vote for Trump under any ridiculous excuse then I have lost all respect for you. Enjoy your orange wrecking ball in office, I am sure you will manage to create a narrative in your head where you won't be looking like a massive tool for voting for him.
Here is what is not being understood. This isn't solely about Israel/Hamas, this is about the West.
In the United States, we have consistently had both parties support Israel, and largely ignore Palestinian activists who attempt to influence our government. Now we have at least two full throated antisemitic, pro-terrorist Palestinians in our Congress.
You can look across the Atlantic to see a much more troubling scenario--look to Britain. Tons of their MPs are pro-Hamas Muslims. Both of their parties are literally scared of pro-Palestinians, to the point a former Tory PM is regularly posting pro-Palestinian rhetoric on social media (David Cameron.)
Almost overnight the UK has become a place where Jews don't feel safe. Where angry Muslim mobs can chant blood libels and paeans to the extermination of Israel on the street with no condemnation from anyone in power in Britain. The BBC has largely served as a clearinghouse for anti-Israeli fake news propaganda since the start of the war (remember the fake news about Israel bombing that hospital early on.)
The problem with Biden kowtowing to the hateful antisemitic Muslim faction is it now says this is where the Democratic party draws its line. It is scared enough of the political consequences of opposing an angry Muslim mob, that it is going to let them now set our national policy and priorities.
What must occur is Biden must pay a price. He and the party leadership that will come after them must be shown, decisively, that throwing your lot in with antisemitic, pro-Hamas Muslims is an electoral abyss, from which you will not recover. When Trump is elected he needs to use all the powers of his office, and take actions legal or illegal, to suppress this growing Muslim extremist faction in the country.
Safely suppressed we can go back to our regular two party programming, but as of yesterday the Democrats are the party of Hamas and Muslim extremism, and only sufficient electoral punishment can hope to steer them back to the right path, lest America in 10 years looks like Britain today, where both parties are cowed in fear of angry Muslim mobs.
Biden has actively doomed the hostages that were possibly going to be released as a result of the Qatar negotiations (which have now largely ended due to Biden's decision):
QuoteIsrael has dismissed Hamas demands for a full military withdrawal and a permanent ceasefire, while the terror group has conditioned any further hostage releases on an Israeli commitment to end the war. Israel has insisted that its military campaign to destroy Hamas's military and governance capabilities will resume once any hostage-truce deal is implemented.
Foreign Minister Israel Katz said in a radio interview Tuesday morning that the US decision to withhold a veto on the Security Council resolution would hurt Israel in talks to free its hostages held by terrorists in the enclave.
Katz drew a direct line between Hamas's rejection of Israeli terms for a truce and hostage deal in exchange for prisoners and the US decision to allow the measure to pass, which he called "a moral and ethical mistake."
"Hamas is building on the fact that... there will be a ceasefire without it needing to pay a thing," he said.
Katz said Israel will now need to up the military pressure to prove its commitment to releasing the hostages and taking down Hamas.
"In our view, there was a message, a no-good message, to anyone on Hamas's side that the US does not support Israel as much, and so we need to prove, militarily, that we will stand by our goals," he said
Also as I predicted a couple weeks ago, the predictable response to the left's desire for Biden to abandon Israel will be Israel becoming more aggressive militarily. It now knows it has no friends, so it needs to focus on getting its grim work done ASAP as time is now of the essence.
Lots of people are going to die because Joe Biden got scared of an angry Muslim mob.
Which of your points is going to be improved by Trump becoming President?
Quote from: Tamas on March 26, 2024, 08:39:38 AMWhich of your points is going to be improved by Trump becoming President?
Is this even a serious question? Trump and the GOP have been consistently strong in pushing back against Muslim extremism in America. There is zero chance a Trump Administration would have abandoned Israel in the UN.
The GOP has already started to message against Biden on this—they have made it clear where they stand, and it is not with Muslim hatemongering terrorists like Rashida Tlaib.
QuoteAlmost overnight the UK has become a place where Jews don't feel safe. Where angry Muslim mobs can chant blood libels and paeans to the extermination of Israel on the street with no condemnation from anyone in power in Britain. The BBC has largely served as a clearinghouse for anti-Israeli fake news propaganda since the start of the war (remember the fake news about Israel bombing that hospital early on.)
I don't think you've looked at what is happening in the UK at all.
The truth is quite the opposite.
Where peaceful protestors call for an end to violence in the middle east they get widely condemned and slammed as being murderous anti-semites.
QuoteThe problem with Biden kowtowing to the hateful antisemitic Muslim faction is it now says this is where the Democratic party draws its line. It is scared enough of the political consequences of opposing an angry Muslim mob, that it is going to let them now set our national policy and priorities.
Hilarious that this is what you think he's doing. You seriously think they're happy with the US merely abstaining on a call for a cease fire with all these conditions?
Its more Biden is falling in line with the entire world and recognising Israel has gone way over the top. Even from an Israeli-supporter side you can see how its clear Israel needs to chill out and come up with an actual plan beyond "Kill Hamas".
QuoteAlso as I predicted a couple weeks ago, the predictable response to the left's desire for Biden to abandon Israel will be Israel becoming more aggressive militarily. It now knows it has no friends, so it needs to focus on getting its grim work done ASAP as time is now of the essence.
Lots of people are going to die because Joe Biden got scared of an angry Muslim mob.
Interesting for such a vehemently pro-Israel person you have so little faith in the Israeli people's humanity. That's more what one would expect from a committed pro-Palestine person.
Incidentally, Israel's reaction to the US abstention was interesting in that it really highlighted the way the term anti-semite is ridiculously overused to mean "Anyone who doesn't completely support whatever the Israeli government is doing"
I don't care about the opinions of Brits who support Hamas, fwiw.
Quote from: Josquius on March 26, 2024, 08:49:50 AMQuoteAlmost overnight the UK has become a place where Jews don't feel safe. Where angry Muslim mobs can chant blood libels and paeans to the extermination of Israel on the street with no condemnation from anyone in power in Britain. The BBC has largely served as a clearinghouse for anti-Israeli fake news propaganda since the start of the war (remember the fake news about Israel bombing that hospital early on.)
I don't think you've looked at what is happening in the UK at all.
The truth is quite the opposite.
Where peaceful protestors call for an end to violence in the middle east they get widely condemned and slammed as being murderous anti-semites.
:lol:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2024, 08:16:34 AMBiden has actively doomed the hostages that were possibly going to be released as a result of the Qatar negotiations (which have now largely ended due to Biden's decision):
We are supposed to take this on the word of . . . Israel Katz?
Katz has had five and a half months to pursue negotiations with Hamas over release of the hostages; for five and half months, Hamas has steadfastly refused to release all the hostages unless hostilities cease. But Katz would have us believe that Hamas was on the verge of suddenly caving and changing their position over the next two weeks? Why? Because Israel was threatening to turn the rubble of Gaza into slightly worse rubble? This isn't even magical thinking, it's 100% bullshit.
I have no illusions about the resolution, which really isn't about Palestine at all; it was a power play from Russia and China to try to embarrass the United States. But the substance of the resolution is not really bad for Israel. In fact, for a competent Israeli government it would present an opportunity to put Hamas on the spot and counteract Israel's pummeling in the international information and propaganda war.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2024, 08:59:57 AMI don't care about the opinions of Brits who support Hamas, fwiw.
OK?
I don't either?
Or are you so far gone you're implying I support Hamas?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 26, 2024, 09:04:27 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2024, 08:16:34 AMBiden has actively doomed the hostages that were possibly going to be released as a result of the Qatar negotiations (which have now largely ended due to Biden's decision):
We are supposed to take this on the word of . . . Israel Katz?
Katz has had five and a half months to pursue negotiations with Hamas over release of the hostages; for five and half months, Hamas has steadfastly refused to release all the hostages unless hostilities cease. But Katz would have us believe that Hamas was on the verge of suddenly caving and changing their position over the next two weeks? Why? Because Israel was threatening to turn the rubble of Gaza into slightly worse rubble? This isn't even magical thinking, it's 100% bullshit.
I have no illusions about the resolution, which really isn't about Palestine at all; it was a power play from Russia and China to try to embarrass the United States. But the substance of the resolution is not really bad for Israel. In fact, for a competent Israeli government it would present an opportunity to put Hamas on the spot and counteract Israel's pummeling in the international information and propaganda war.
The idea that you think Israel should have to let Hamas survive to get its people back--which is Hamas's red line for negotiating, is ludicrous and disgusting. They need to just let the Muslims overrun the country today and pogrom all the Jews if that is the line Israel is going to draw. That just says "hurt us more, it gets the results you want." Hamas wants bombs to stop dropping, it should return the hostages and agree to let its leadership go into exile.
Quote from: Josquius on March 26, 2024, 09:04:51 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2024, 08:59:57 AMI don't care about the opinions of Brits who support Hamas, fwiw.
OK?
I don't either?
Or are you so far gone you're implying I support Hamas?
You've been a toady puke for Hamas this entire fucking conflict, from day one.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2024, 09:06:33 AMQuote from: Josquius on March 26, 2024, 09:04:51 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2024, 08:59:57 AMI don't care about the opinions of Brits who support Hamas, fwiw.
OK?
I don't either?
Or are you so far gone you're implying I support Hamas?
You've been a toady puke for Hamas this entire fucking conflict, from day one.
:lmfao:
Wow. You really are a genocidal piece of shit.
Quote from: Josquius on March 26, 2024, 09:07:27 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2024, 09:06:33 AMQuote from: Josquius on March 26, 2024, 09:04:51 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2024, 08:59:57 AMI don't care about the opinions of Brits who support Hamas, fwiw.
OK?
I don't either?
Or are you so far gone you're implying I support Hamas?
You've been a toady puke for Hamas this entire fucking conflict, from day one.
:lmfao:
Wow. You really are a genocidal piece of shit.
I'm not the one who supports mass murder of Jews to burnish my leftist credentials.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2024, 09:06:12 AMThe idea that you think Israel should have to let Hamas survive to get its people back--which is Hamas's red line for negotiating, is ludicrous and disgusting. They need to just let the Muslims overrun the country today and pogrom all the Jews if that is the line Israel is going to draw. That just says "hurt us more, it gets the results you want." Hamas wants bombs to stop dropping, it should return the hostages and agree to let its leadership go into exile.
I don't know where this comes from. The question on the table is whether Israel should cease operations until April 9 in the hope of a hostage release. No plan against Hamas is going to seriously compromised by that. If Hamas has not been destroyed in 24 weeks of continuous military acton, a 2 week hiatus is not going to be critical. If Hamas doesn't comply, Israel will have a green light and UN will be neutered.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2024, 09:08:01 AMQuote from: Josquius on March 26, 2024, 09:07:27 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2024, 09:06:33 AMQuote from: Josquius on March 26, 2024, 09:04:51 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2024, 08:59:57 AMI don't care about the opinions of Brits who support Hamas, fwiw.
OK?
I don't either?
Or are you so far gone you're implying I support Hamas?
You've been a toady puke for Hamas this entire fucking conflict, from day one.
:lmfao:
Wow. You really are a genocidal piece of shit.
I'm not the one who supports mass murder of Jews to burnish my leftist credentials.
No. You're the one who supports mass murder of Muslims to burnish your right wing credentials.
The one who supports mass murder of Jews...I don't think they post on languish. Maybe check twitter?
Meanwhile the antisemites in the UN (lead by virulent antisemite Francesca Albanese) is releasing a report calling Israel's actions in Gaza a genocide, and also painting with broadstrokes a picture of Israel as a "colonial power" akin to the United States with its native americans.
You rubes who think this UNSC absention are the final act are in for a rude awakening. This is the sort of narrative that will be growing in Democrat circles, within a relatively short window of time you will see Joe likely suspending military support of Israel, today's abstention is a future where the UN votes with the UNSC to levy sanctions on Israel, attempting to paint it as a modern day apartheid South Africa.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 26, 2024, 09:12:29 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2024, 09:06:12 AMThe idea that you think Israel should have to let Hamas survive to get its people back--which is Hamas's red line for negotiating, is ludicrous and disgusting. They need to just let the Muslims overrun the country today and pogrom all the Jews if that is the line Israel is going to draw. That just says "hurt us more, it gets the results you want." Hamas wants bombs to stop dropping, it should return the hostages and agree to let its leadership go into exile.
I don't know where this comes from. The question on the table is whether Israel should cease operations until April 9 in the hope of a hostage release. No plan against Hamas is going to seriously compromised by that. If Hamas has not been destroyed in 24 weeks of continuous military acton, a 2 week hiatus is not going to be critical. If Hamas doesn't comply, Israel will have a green light and UN will be neutered.
I think OvB is frankly stupid to want to flush his country down the drain with a Trump presidency in the hopes of a tougher stand on Muslim extremism, but it is a bit dishonest to pretend the UN SC pressure is not bad news for the hostages. The hostages are the only leverage Hamas has against the Israeli onslaught, if they feel international pressure can stop Israel, what's the point of giving up their one leverage?
Israel has been the victim of a 75 year campaign to paint it as an illegitimate state by its enemies (who have disproportionate representation in the UN due to the 50 or so Muslim countries that get equal votes in that body to the smaller number of democracies.) This campaign has found a home in the feeble minds of the left in the West, one of the few barriers of sanity keeping this at bay was that in the United States both our left and right stood firm behind Israel. Antisemites and pro-Muslim terrorists may have long ago taken over Europe, but not in America.
What Biden has done by breaking with Israel has set us on a path where every election now will be a decision as to whether we go down the path of European countries which long ago abandoned the premise that Israel is legitimate (frankly Britain never really even supported this, considering they actively helped the Holocaust along during WWII because they didn't want to give Jews too much population in Palestine); we now have a party that will take us in that direction. That party is no longer legitimate. I was a fool to ever think otherwise, the zealots of the right who have been long describing the battle with the left as a battle for survival were right, I was wrong.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2024, 09:18:20 AMIsrael has been the victim of a 75 year campaign to paint it as an illegitimate state by its enemies (who have disproportionate representation in the UN due to the 50 or so Muslim countries that get equal votes in that body to the smaller number of democracies.) This campaign has found a home in the feeble minds of the left in the West, one of the few barriers of sanity keeping this at bay was that in the United States both our left and right stood firm behind Israel. Antisemites and pro-Muslim terrorists may have long ago taken over Europe, but not in America.
What Biden has done by breaking with Israel has set us on a path where every election now will be a decision as to whether we go down the path of European countries which long ago abandoned the premise that Israel is legitimate (frankly Britain never really even supported this, considering they actively helped the Holocaust along during WWII because they didn't want to give Jews too much population in Palestine); we now have a party that will take us in that direction. That party is no longer legitimate. I was a fool to ever think otherwise, the zealots of the right who have been long describing the battle with the left as a battle for survival were right, I was wrong.
You should count to 10, you are way past of becoming the Josq of the pro-Israel side and immediately jumped to be the Viper of it.
Quote from: Tamas on March 26, 2024, 09:18:02 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on March 26, 2024, 09:12:29 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2024, 09:06:12 AMThe idea that you think Israel should have to let Hamas survive to get its people back--which is Hamas's red line for negotiating, is ludicrous and disgusting. They need to just let the Muslims overrun the country today and pogrom all the Jews if that is the line Israel is going to draw. That just says "hurt us more, it gets the results you want." Hamas wants bombs to stop dropping, it should return the hostages and agree to let its leadership go into exile.
I don't know where this comes from. The question on the table is whether Israel should cease operations until April 9 in the hope of a hostage release. No plan against Hamas is going to seriously compromised by that. If Hamas has not been destroyed in 24 weeks of continuous military acton, a 2 week hiatus is not going to be critical. If Hamas doesn't comply, Israel will have a green light and UN will be neutered.
I think OvB is frankly stupid to want to flush his country down the drain with a Trump presidency in the hopes of a tougher stand on Muslim extremism, but it is a bit dishonest to pretend the UN SC pressure is not bad news for the hostages. The hostages are the only leverage Hamas has against the Israeli onslaught, if they feel international pressure can stop Israel, what's the point of giving up their one leverage?
We'll see.
I agree the 2 weeks doesn't make much of a difference militarily. Hamas can't really regroup that much. But it does put to the test their claim that if the fighting stopped they'd release the hostages.
Of course I fully expect Hamas won't release more than 1 or 2 and will go "No but, this isn't a proper stop you see, you can't trust Israel, they'll just attack again"- which with the current Israeli government is quite believable and many would have just took them at their word even despite this.. but they will lose a lot of support.
In the meantime hopefully the chill pushes Israel to actually come up with a coherent plan beyond frothing rage.
Otto - Keep telling yourself that when the Russian tanks are rolling through Warsaw and Prague, cheered on President Trumpski and Speaker Taylor Greene.
President Trump would not abandon Poland, one of the countries he most consistently praised whilst in office.
I do think Trump stupidly has a personal affection for guys like Putin, but not to the point of supporting them against countries like Poland in an actual war. I think Trump (rightly to some degree) dislikes that most of Europe refuses to contribute to its own defense, I do think Trump sloppily doesn't realize NATO still is mostly to our net benefit because it gives us strategic power in Europe, but it isn't wrong for Trump to pressure European countries to improve their defense. There is even some evidence those harangues worked to a limited degree, and have made Europe take its own defense more seriously.
Trump is dumb and incompetent, but he isn't willing to sell out his country to Muslims to win votes. The choice between him and Joe Biden is clear and concise. One is a vote for Hamas.
Hopefully you are right and Poland will not fall, although that will be of little consolation to the Ukranian slave battalions that will be slaughtered in the front line of the human wave attacks. Because we all know that Trump will 100% sell out Ukraine.
Also folks in the Baltic states should either learn Russian or start canvassing for some coastal real estate to trade.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2024, 09:27:14 AMPresident Trump would not abandon Poland, one of the countries he most consistently praised whilst in office.
I do think Trump stupidly has a personal affection for guys like Putin, but not to the point of supporting them against countries like Poland in an actual war. I think Trump (rightly to some degree) dislikes that most of Europe refuses to contribute to its own defense, I do think Trump sloppily doesn't realize NATO still is mostly to our net benefit because it gives us strategic power in Europe, but it isn't wrong for Trump to pressure European countries to improve their defense. There is even some evidence those harangues worked to a limited degree, and have made Europe take its own defense more seriously.
Trump is dumb and incompetent, but he isn't willing to sell out his country to Muslims to win votes. The choice between him and Joe Biden is clear and concise. One is a vote for Hamas.
OMG, man, and I used to think you had a good grasp of politics.
You seem to imply you expect Trump will abandon Ukraine (since you don't mention that) but that's acceptable to counter pan-Muslim influence. But it is obviously not. It doesn't matter where Russia will stop exactly (and BTW Putin cannot stop with the national level of paranoia and aggression, the moment he does the moment his excuse for being in power evaporates), letting them overwhelm Ukraine will collapse the post-WW2 world order and will cascade into a chaos that's going to result in way more global Muslim influence than an abstained Sec Council resolution by Biden.
You should be honest with yourself: you want to vote Republican but lacked the excuse to do so. Now you feel you have it.
I consider the situation in Ukraine unfortunate, but I am not going to abandon Israel out of concern for Ukraine, no.
Also given all the difficulties Putin has had in Ukraine, I am skeptical he will try anything more. I also don't 100% believe the Republicans have fully abandoned Ukraine. The issue right now is supporting Ukraine gets conflated to some degree with supporting Biden. I think with a fully Republican government there is greater chance of getting Ukraine aid passed.
And making me have to choose between Israel and Ukraine is a choice Joe Biden made, I would have preferred he not, but I have to respond to the world I live in--where Biden has become a craven enemy of Israel.
It's sad to see Otto turn traitor and embrace Russia like this :(
Quote from: Jacob on March 26, 2024, 09:50:23 AMIt's sad to see Otto turn traitor and embrace Russia like this :(
It looks like it was a short hop, when a resolution from an impotent organization that the participants are mostly going to ignore and will have almost no effect made him do it.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2024, 09:42:16 AM\I also don't 100% believe the Republicans have fully abandoned Ukraine.
You still think there is a Republican Party outside of Trump?
Zombie former leader Mitch will not save the party from Secretary of Defense Kash Patel and Secetary of State Devin Nunes.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2024, 09:45:42 AMAnd making me have to choose between Israel and Ukraine is a choice Joe Biden made, I would have preferred he not, but I have to respond to the world I live in--where Biden has become a craven enemy of Israel.
That choice is in your head alone.
A more obvious read of the Sec Council abstain, rather than your apocalyptic vision, is that Bibi needed to be sent a signal US support is not a carte blanche for him to do whatever he wants to keep himself out of prison, there are limits. Which is an important message to send, and I am sure it has been sent more subtly, and Bibi being the reckless chancer he is, he considered them a bluff. Now he know it wasn't.
Quote from: frunk on March 26, 2024, 09:54:45 AMQuote from: Jacob on March 26, 2024, 09:50:23 AMIt's sad to see Otto turn traitor and embrace Russia like this :(
It looks like it was a short hop, when a resolution from an impotent organization that the participants are mostly going to ignore and will have almost no effect made him do it.
Yep. Grumbler was correct when this was just fig leaf that Otto can use to 'defend' his decision to vote for Trump.
This isn't about fucking Netanyahu. Israel has to finish Hamas, and it has to go into Rafah to do it. That would be true regardless of who was Israel's PM. Meanwhile the Biden Administration is clearly trying to stop this from happening. There is no realistic conclusion as to what "not letting the IDF finish Hamas" means. It means a return to the pre-war condition with Gaza as a terror state ruled by Hamas, set up to conduct endless repeats of October 7th.
Hamas isn't going away because Joe Biden says some strong words, it takes military action to destroy a military enemy. Biden has made clear he is against beating Hamas.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2024, 09:58:09 AMThis isn't about fucking Netanyahu. Israel has to finish Hamas, and it has to go into Rafah to do it. That would be true regardless of who was Israel's PM. Meanwhile the Biden Administration is clearly trying to stop this from happening. There is no realistic conclusion as to what "not letting the IDF finish Hamas" means. It means a return to the pre-war condition with Gaza as a terror state ruled by Hamas, set up to conduct endless repeats of October 7th.
Hamas isn't going away because Joe Biden says some strong words, it takes military action to destroy a military enemy. Biden has made clear he is against beating Hamas.
Except that Netanyahu is an independent actor. I believe it is imperative for him that hostilities are maintained to the longest possible time. Once crisis mode ends, new questions about his leadership will be added to the long list of existing questions, and as soon as he loses an election he'll go to prison.
Do you think Hamas would have not done this attack if someone other than Netanyahu was PM? The focus on "this is Netanyahu's war" is an anti-Israeli tactic being used in the West. It is designed to make this appear like an optional war that Netanyahu started and that it isn't linked to Israel's national interests. Any Israeli PM would have to prosecute this war to the destruction of Hamas.
The anti-Netanyahu rhetoric is simply seeking to undermine Israel through the mechanism of a historically unpopular / corrupt politician.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2024, 10:11:13 AMDo you think Hamas would have not done this attack if someone other than Netanyahu was PM? The focus on "this is Netanyahu's war" is an anti-Israeli tactic being used in the West. It is designed to make this appear like an optional war that Netanyahu started and that it isn't linked to Israel's national interests. Any Israeli PM would have to prosecute this war to the destruction of Hamas.
The anti-Netanyahu rhetoric is simply seeking to undermine Israel through the mechanism of a historically unpopular / corrupt politician.
Why would I think that? But the attack happened, and the man in charge of Israel is an Orban-like chancer whose literal survival is linked to continued war, therefore cannot be trusted to keep Israel's best interests at heart, not even to the degree that Future President Trump can.
Just because Israel is led by an asshat doesn't mean we abandon them. Would we be expected to abandon Hungary if, as a NATO member, they came under attack?
Netanyahu wants to go into Rafah to put an end to Hamas's military power and its administrative power. There is not actually any way to achieve those ends without destroying the last Hamas battalions located there. Is there something I'm missing where if Benny Gantz was PM we would be looking at a different condition? Biden has drawn a line in the sand opposing that which is intrinsically necessary.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2024, 10:21:59 AMJust because Israel is lead by an asshat doesn't mean we abandon them. Would we be expected to abandon Hungary if, as a NATO member, they came under attack?
Netanyahu wants to go into Rafah to put an end to Hamas's military power and its administrative power. There is not actually any way to achieve those ends without destroying the lats Hamas battalions located there. Is there something I'm missing where if Benny Gantz was PM we would be looking at a different condition? Biden has drawn a line in the sand opposing that which is intrinsically necessary.
Except no such line was drawn. At most this is a washing of hands. If the attack on Rafah turns out to be a PR disaster, which it inevitably will regardless of how much care is put to protect civilians, the Biden gov. can claim distance from it.
Come back with this argument when the US actually supported an anti-Israel resolution or stopped supporting them with money or material. Then I'll say you were right to be concerned.
The true geopolitical risks are Ukraine and the state of US democracy. Sacrificing those while being caught up (even on the opposite side) in the pan-Muslim generated whirlwind around bloody calls for a Middle East cease-fire is, frankly, foolish.
You just don't see the inflection point, unfortunately. You don't understand American politics. This is a watershed, this is the breaking of the back of the Israel lobby in the Democratic party. Biden, if anything, was moving out of step with the party as a whole in supporting Israel. Joe is old, hopefully soon out of office, and any potential Democrat to run again will be far more anti-Israel. This will push any remaining pro-Israel voters, at least ones who prioritize it, out of the party. We will then have a two party system in which one of the two parties is virulently against Israel on par with typical European governments.
It historically has not mattered that so much of the West got infested with the anti-Israeli propaganda campaign, because in security matters the rest of the West doesn't matter, it is America that matters. But now America has one of its two parties with this stance.
I see very little hope for righting the Democratic ship, this anti-Israeli rhetoric has great currency among their youth wing, the party has really lost itself here, and it is unlikely they can right the ship.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2024, 09:58:09 AMThis isn't about fucking Netanyahu. Israel has to finish Hamas, and it has to go into Rafah to do it. That would be true regardless of who was Israel's PM. Meanwhile the Biden Administration is clearly trying to stop this from happening. There is no realistic conclusion as to what "not letting the IDF finish Hamas" means. It means a return to the pre-war condition with Gaza as a terror state ruled by Hamas, set up to conduct endless repeats of October 7th.
Hamas isn't going away because Joe Biden says some strong words, it takes military action to destroy a military enemy. Biden has made clear he is against beating Hamas.
Hamas wants to destroy Israel.
Russia wants to destroy the US.
You're siding with those who want to destroy the US. Ironically, you're doing it out of hate for a group that the real enemy of the US - Russia - has deployed deliberately for the purpose of distracting people like you from the actual enemy. And you're falling for it.
Russia has wanted to destroy the U.S. since the days of Josef Stalin. I'm not going to vote for an anti-Israel party.
Russia has nothing to do with Joe Biden deciding to abandon Israel. And frankly, the idea that Russia controls the GOP or that the GOP is going to ally with Russia is nonsense. There is an element of the party that buys into certain Russian narratives because the incidents in 2016 and subsequently have created a perception that doing so burnishes ones opposition to Democrats. But in actual office the Republicans have done little to show an affinity for Russia.
You do remember that it was Trump who was the first American President to ship Ukraine lethal military aid, right? After coward Obama refused to do so for years.
If anything the big defect in modern Republican thinking is the prevalence of isolationism--but frankly, isolationism doesn't put me at risk from Russia. It may put weak European countries at risk--the same countries that happily want to see Israel destroyed. Fuck em.
I do think the GOP in power will be robust defenders of Israel.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2024, 10:35:27 AMYou do remember that it was Trump who was the first
The Trump *administration* shipped lethal aid under the policy of Mattis, Pompeo, Bolton, etc. But Trump's own view was shaped by his failed attempt to use that aid flow to blackmail Ukraine into fabricating dirt on Biden.
The guys in the Trump admin that resisted Russia and people like them will not be any future Trump administration. Any thought that Trump will not betray Ukraine is delusional.
Eh, Trump cares a lot about being perceived as strong. His rhetoric has often been "I would force them to accept a peace agreement on day one." When Putin publicly humiliated him by refusing, I think you would see Trump take a different path--he is unable to tolerate anyone crossing him even a little.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2024, 10:43:57 AMEh, Trump cares a lot about being perceived as strong. His rhetoric has often been "I would force them to accept a peace agreement on day one." When Putin publicly humiliated him by refusing, I think you would see Trump take a different path--he is unable to tolerate anyone crossing him even a little.
Tell that to the dead Kurds that faced down Isis for us, only to be slaughtered by Turks when Trump folded lack a pack of cards in a hurricane to Erdogan and forced American special forces to turn tail and run.
Trump knows that for his idiot base all he needs to do to appear strong is talk loudly and say idiotic things. He's already tipped his hand; he's being "tough" because the deadbeat Ukrainians are looking for handouts.
Trump also claimed he would make Mexico pay for the wall and that North Korea would be brought to heel when all he did was give them photo ops.
Much more important to his persona than his tough guy act is his ability to find a distraction for any given situation.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 26, 2024, 09:12:29 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2024, 09:06:12 AMThe idea that you think Israel should have to let Hamas survive to get its people back--which is Hamas's red line for negotiating, is ludicrous and disgusting. They need to just let the Muslims overrun the country today and pogrom all the Jews if that is the line Israel is going to draw. That just says "hurt us more, it gets the results you want." Hamas wants bombs to stop dropping, it should return the hostages and agree to let its leadership go into exile.
I don't know where this comes from. The question on the table is whether Israel should cease operations until April 9 in the hope of a hostage release. No plan against Hamas is going to seriously compromised by that. If Hamas has not been destroyed in 24 weeks of continuous military acton, a 2 week hiatus is not going to be critical. If Hamas doesn't comply, Israel will have a green light and UN will be neutered.
That's my argument as well. Israel is not militarily ready to move on Raffa ight now, by their own admission. The UN has given them the perfect excuse to hold back on an action they couldn't take anyway, and the fact that it also stops them from bouncing the rubble hurts Israeli security not at all. By accpeting this resolution and ceasing military operations for two weeks, Israel gets to call the UNSC's bluff and either:
1. get their hostages back, if Hamas also meets the UNSC's demand, or
2. eliminate any chance the UNSC can credibly pass any additional resolutions, because Hamas won't meet their demands.
Win-win for Israel.
I suspect that Otto's frothing has much more to do with his desire for an excuse to support Trump than anything to do with the Middle East.
Trump voters will have Ukrainian blood on their hands if he wins, and will be responsible for emboldening both Russia and China. Extremist Islamists will be emboldened too via their patrons in Iran, as Iran's patron Russia scores a number of victories.
100% Trump is going to undermine Ukraine. He's a coward through and through. He has two modes of interaction with enemies of the West:
1) Bluster and tough talk for his meme-projects and his ego, which unceremoniously folds in the face of any real resistance or potential pay-off; and
2) Sucking up to dictators because he really wishes he could wield that kind of power.
Trump will also undermine NATO and other American alliances and accelerate the estrangement between Europe and the US, but I don't expect that to weigh too heavily for his voters either - it seems to be a desired feature.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 07, 2023, 09:00:24 AMI will always stand with Israel, but I hate what is now coming for the Palestinians who aren't part of this insanity and who have just been struggling to get by--because they will bear the brunt of the pain.
While I am not quite sure Netanyahu would knowingly "allow this" to happen, and intelligence failures do happen--I can think of few developments more beneficial for him.
This is the end of public political opposition to his coalition. The end of drama over his authoritarian reforms.
It may even benefit them diplomatically, because all signs are Iran gave blessing to this. A major driver of the rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran has been a shared enmity towards Iran, and IMO this could actually help move more of the formal governments of the Arab world into closer relationships with Israel. Maybe not formal signed peace treaties, but I think this actually helps Israel diplomatically in the long run.
It is interesting to compare and contrast what Otto said just a few months ago with the MAGA extremist he has become.
I want civilians to stop dying in the Levant.
But if it means Russia is stopped then let Israel completely annex and ethnically cleanse Gaza as the nutters want.
It's a drastically less important issue and not one that would be influencing my vote in a meaningful election.
Russia, and through their influence China, are a threat to the world.
Israel is just a threat to their neighbours. Islamic extremists too are no serious threat outside the middle east ( in the way general murderers aren't a threat - it happens but isn't going to destroy the country...unless they are allowed to succeed and we allow Putin analogues to power here)
I feel like I'm witnessing a mental health crisis unfold. This is not a rational reaction. Either that, or it's some Dorsey-level trolling.
Quote from: DGuller on March 26, 2024, 02:38:59 PMI feel like I'm witnessing a mental health crisis unfold. This is not a rational reaction. Either that, or it's some Dorsey-level trolling.
Seems like an end of season cliffhanger...
Weird though: Trump sucks Putin sausage, Putin is allied to Iran, which is run by islamist a-holes that want to destroy Israel...
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 26, 2024, 03:12:12 PMQuote from: DGuller on March 26, 2024, 02:38:59 PMI feel like I'm witnessing a mental health crisis unfold. This is not a rational reaction. Either that, or it's some Dorsey-level trolling.
Seems like an end of season cliffhanger...
Weird though: Trump sucks Putin sausage, Putin is allied to Iran, which is run by islamist a-holes that want to destroy Israel...
And destroy the United States. But apparently that is of little concern.
John Bolton is outraged and now telling everyone both Trump and Biden will destroy America.
This seems like a pretty unhinged reaction to what seems like not a big deal to me. One would think the entire purpose of the United States is to give Israel money and veto UNSC resolutions about them.
Anyway there is no cease-fire. So who cares what the technicalities of the resolution said? The main thing this does for us is washing our hands a bit of the blood of all those dead Palestinian Civilians which I guess is fitting during Holy Week.
Israel will continue to push forward and ultimately we will still keep them from most of the potential consequences of that.
It was during my lifetime that we looked to the US for models of good governance. :(
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2024, 06:29:02 PMIt was during my lifetime that we looked to the US for models of good governance. :(
Dubya has a lot to answer for. He was the first president to embraced the Imperial Presidency.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2024, 06:29:02 PMIt was during my lifetime that we looked to the US for models of good governance. :(
Oh yeah. All the times Canada went along with us about Israel goes way back.
I keep getting pro-Palestinian stuff on my Facebook feed. Today I got one called "Peace for Palestine" in it's description it starts going on about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Sometimes you don't even have to scratch the surface.
And here's one from a guy named Salael Kiefer
(https://i.imgur.com/1rZMYoI.jpeg)
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2024, 06:58:37 PMI keep getting pro-Palestinian stuff on my Facebook feed. Today I got one called "Peace for Palestine" in it's description it starts going on about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Sometimes you don't even have to scratch the surface.
:bleeding:
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2024, 07:13:54 PMAnd here's one from a guy named Salael Kiefer
(https://i.imgur.com/1rZMYoI.jpeg)
If I was a pig I would be a big Israel fan as well.
Reminds me of an old German comedy song about a truck driver carrying 120 pigs to Beirut, only to realize they don't eat pork (it's less xenophobic than it sounds :P ).
You guys seem surprised by Otto's turn. He's always been a fascist, there really is no change from before.
Also it's funny how he now extols the virtues of Trump while Trump has ALSO called for Israel to stop the war (granted, because it's bad PR, but still).
The Trump coalition is full of folks saying "when Trump says he'll sell my interest group out, it's just empty posturing for effect or clever politics; he'd never actually do it. When he says he'll sell out interest groups I dislike, it's honest no-bullshit say-it-like-it-is truth and it's amazing and that's why I love him."
Trump doesn't give a damn about Israel or Palestinians. He'll turn to line his pockets and stroke his ego at any time it seems convenient. That may or may not include selling out Israel at any given point.
Why is everyone surprised when someone who has openly admitted here of his hatred of Muslims said he will vote for Donald Trump :lol:
Jeez people get a grip.
Quote from: Jacob on March 27, 2024, 12:04:45 PMThe Trump coalition is full of folks saying "when Trump says he'll sell my interest group out, it's just empty posturing for effect or clever politics; he'd never actually do it. When he says he'll sell out interest groups I dislike, it's honest no-bullshit say-it-like-it-is truth and it's amazing and that's why I love him."
Trump doesn't give a damn about Israel or Palestinians. He'll turn to line his pockets and stroke his ego at any time it seems convenient. That may or may not include selling out Israel at any given point.
Disagree. It's my belief that the one interest group he considers absolutely indispensable is evangelicals. And Israel is their pet.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2024, 02:46:13 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 27, 2024, 12:04:45 PMThe Trump coalition is full of folks saying "when Trump says he'll sell my interest group out, it's just empty posturing for effect or clever politics; he'd never actually do it. When he says he'll sell out interest groups I dislike, it's honest no-bullshit say-it-like-it-is truth and it's amazing and that's why I love him."
Trump doesn't give a damn about Israel or Palestinians. He'll turn to line his pockets and stroke his ego at any time it seems convenient. That may or may not include selling out Israel at any given point.
Disagree. It's my belief that the one interest group he considers absolutely indispensable is evangelicals. And Israel is their pet.
If he was smart and looking at getting elected maybe.
But once in power would he actually care about them?
Quote from: Josquius on March 27, 2024, 02:53:50 PMIf he was smart and looking at getting elected maybe.
But once in power would he actually care about them?
Once elected he still needs anti-impeachment insurance.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2024, 02:46:13 PMDisagree. It's my belief that the one interest group he considers absolutely indispensable is evangelicals. And Israel is their pet.
I disagree that is reliable. Evangelicals have swallowed tons of cognitive dissonance to support Trump; disagreement over Israel policy would not push them over. Evangelicals supported Pat Buchanan for years despite Buchanan being one of the most anti-Israel politicians of significance on the right. If Trump changed gears on Israel, the evangelicals would follow like the Trumpy sheep they've been since rapey, porn star screwing vulgarian got up from his golden toilet and descended down the Trump Tower escalator.
I don't think Trump would turn on Israel for other reasons - Stephen Miller is strongly pro Likud and and I assume Trump is still close enough to Jared that mideast policy would largely follow the term 1 script. But Jacob has a point; Trump is entirely selfish and unreliable, and he could turn on a dime if he felt offended or another policy interested him personally.
Just imagine ramifications if Netanyahu was caught on a hot mic talking shit about him.
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 27, 2024, 02:36:17 PMWhy is everyone surprised when someone who has openly admitted here of his hatred of Muslims said he will vote for Donald Trump :lol:
Jeez people get a grip.
I am disappointed.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2024, 07:13:54 PMAnd here's one from a guy named Salael Kiefer
(https://i.imgur.com/1rZMYoI.jpeg)
Looking the Facebook profile and the complaints about the SLEAZY dms, it's either a gay dude or a female hair stylist. Not a guy.
You have weird acquaintances.
Anyway. I don't have such things popping up on my FB.
Conspiracy theories about govt control, lockdowns, and the coronavirus, which are now gone.
It's now mostly geek stuff about Star Wars, LOTR, BSG, fan theories, etc.
Worst that happened, was a fan made post about a Star Destroyer orbiting over the White House. I commented that I would cheer for them if Donald Trump was a resident of said building. That pissed off some friends of Otto. ;)
Like I said, FB is an algorithm: it shows you what you want to see to maximise ad revenues. If you keep clicking on anti-semitic links, FB does not distinguish if it's to voice your outrage or to applaud the slaughter of Jewish citizens everywhere: it shows you the stuff.
Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2024, 04:20:05 PMJust imagine ramifications if Netanyahu was caught on a hot mic talking shit about him.
Step 1:
Get the Palestinian leaders to flatter Trump's ego.
Step 2:
Try to catch Bibi on a hot mic talking shit about him.
Instant policy reversal. Otto has a meltdown. :showoff:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2024, 02:46:13 PMDisagree. It's my belief that the one interest group he considers absolutely indispensable is evangelicals. And Israel is their pet.
There are few things Donald Trump loves more than taking advantage of people and pulling something over on people who think he's in their corner.
One theme for the current American radical right is the way they've turned on and jettisoned previous shibboleths and purity tests for their movement. Sure they evangelical right loves Israel, but if Trump could find a way to turn his base against Israel for his own gain (or ego) he'd have no compunction not to. And if the Trump base is given a choice between Trump or Israel, I think they'll break for Trump in large numbers.
EDIT: Not right now, of course. But soon enough.
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 27, 2024, 02:36:17 PMWhy is everyone surprised when someone who has openly admitted here of his hatred of Muslims said he will vote for Donald Trump :lol:
Jeez people get a grip.
I just...don't understand it. He is babbling insane nonsense.
"1+2 = Fish! 1+2 = Fish!" makes more sense than this means we are now aligned with Hamas. Hamas doesn't even want the damn cease fire.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2024, 02:46:13 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 27, 2024, 12:04:45 PMThe Trump coalition is full of folks saying "when Trump says he'll sell my interest group out, it's just empty posturing for effect or clever politics; he'd never actually do it. When he says he'll sell out interest groups I dislike, it's honest no-bullshit say-it-like-it-is truth and it's amazing and that's why I love him."
Trump doesn't give a damn about Israel or Palestinians. He'll turn to line his pockets and stroke his ego at any time it seems convenient. That may or may not include selling out Israel at any given point.
Disagree. It's my belief that the one interest group he considers absolutely indispensable is evangelicals. And Israel is their pet.
I don't think Trump considers anyone indispensable, not even his own children.
Quote from: Jacob on March 27, 2024, 04:49:24 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2024, 02:46:13 PMDisagree. It's my belief that the one interest group he considers absolutely indispensable is evangelicals. And Israel is their pet.
There are few things Donald Trump loves more than taking advantage of people and pulling something over on people who think he's in their corner.
One theme for the current American radical right is the way they've turned on and jettisoned previous shibboleths and purity tests for their movement. Sure they evangelical right loves Israel, but if Trump could find a way to turn his base against Israel for his own gain (or ego) he'd have no compunction not to. And if the Trump base is given a choice between Trump or Israel, I think they'll break for Trump in large numbers.
EDIT: Not right now, of course. But soon enough.
And even then...isn't the Christian evangelical support of Israel based on some mad idea that they'll bring about the Second Coming/Apocolypse? :hmm:
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 27, 2024, 08:36:10 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 27, 2024, 04:49:24 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2024, 02:46:13 PMDisagree. It's my belief that the one interest group he considers absolutely indispensable is evangelicals. And Israel is their pet.
There are few things Donald Trump loves more than taking advantage of people and pulling something over on people who think he's in their corner.
One theme for the current American radical right is the way they've turned on and jettisoned previous shibboleths and purity tests for their movement. Sure they evangelical right loves Israel, but if Trump could find a way to turn his base against Israel for his own gain (or ego) he'd have no compunction not to. And if the Trump base is given a choice between Trump or Israel, I think they'll break for Trump in large numbers.
EDIT: Not right now, of course. But soon enough.
And even then...isn't the Christian evangelical support of Israel based on some mad idea that they'll bring about the Second Coming/Apocolypse? :hmm:
Once all the Jews of Israel convert to the one true god the apocalypse will start, IIRC.
Quote from: HVC on March 27, 2024, 08:39:26 PMQuote from: Tonitrus on March 27, 2024, 08:36:10 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 27, 2024, 04:49:24 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2024, 02:46:13 PMDisagree. It's my belief that the one interest group he considers absolutely indispensable is evangelicals. And Israel is their pet.
There are few things Donald Trump loves more than taking advantage of people and pulling something over on people who think he's in their corner.
One theme for the current American radical right is the way they've turned on and jettisoned previous shibboleths and purity tests for their movement. Sure they evangelical right loves Israel, but if Trump could find a way to turn his base against Israel for his own gain (or ego) he'd have no compunction not to. And if the Trump base is given a choice between Trump or Israel, I think they'll break for Trump in large numbers.
EDIT: Not right now, of course. But soon enough.
And even then...isn't the Christian evangelical support of Israel based on some mad idea that they'll bring about the Second Coming/Apocolypse? :hmm:
Once all the Jews of Israel convert to the one true god the apocalypse will start, IIRC.
Isn't the second coming a necessary precursor for this?
But even in a biblical apocalypse I could well imagine a divide would remain over whether its first or second and the man himself going "Guys. Its my 6th." wouldn't change anything :hmm:
Quote from: Josquius on March 28, 2024, 05:16:38 AMQuote from: HVC on March 27, 2024, 08:39:26 PMQuote from: Tonitrus on March 27, 2024, 08:36:10 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 27, 2024, 04:49:24 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2024, 02:46:13 PMDisagree. It's my belief that the one interest group he considers absolutely indispensable is evangelicals. And Israel is their pet.
There are few things Donald Trump loves more than taking advantage of people and pulling something over on people who think he's in their corner.
One theme for the current American radical right is the way they've turned on and jettisoned previous shibboleths and purity tests for their movement. Sure they evangelical right loves Israel, but if Trump could find a way to turn his base against Israel for his own gain (or ego) he'd have no compunction not to. And if the Trump base is given a choice between Trump or Israel, I think they'll break for Trump in large numbers.
EDIT: Not right now, of course. But soon enough.
And even then...isn't the Christian evangelical support of Israel based on some mad idea that they'll bring about the Second Coming/Apocolypse? :hmm:
Once all the Jews of Israel convert to the one true god the apocalypse will start, IIRC.
Isn't the second coming a necessary precursor for this?
But even in a biblical apocalypse I could well imagine a divide would remain over whether its first or second and the man himself going "Guys. Its my 6th." wouldn't change anything :hmm:
For apocalypse, minded evangelicals it's all about the rebuilding of the temple. An interesting counterfactual thought experiment is what would happen if evangelicals in the United States, were not so fixated on bringing about the end of the world.
I think you guys keep missing an important point: a decisive portion of loudly religious people are only loudly religious to find excuses for being the absolute bastards which they are. They take the teachings of their religion about as seriously as your average atheist.
Quote from: Tamas on March 28, 2024, 09:11:37 AMI think you guys keep missing an important point: a decisive portion of loudly religious people are only loudly religious to find excuses for being the absolute bastards which they are. They take the teachings of their religion about as seriously as your average atheist.
I don't think that is accurate. There is a strong belief amongst evangelicals that their God is responsible for their financial success. And so they have an economic incentive to be faithful.
That same belief underpins the view that being poor is a moral failing.
All of which works well with right wing ideology.
Quote from: Tamas on March 28, 2024, 09:11:37 AMI think you guys keep missing an important point: a decisive portion of loudly religious people are only loudly religious to find excuses for being the absolute bastards which they are. They take the teachings of their religion about as seriously as your average atheist.
I disagree.
I take my atheism very seriously. :mad:
Quote from: Jacob on March 27, 2024, 04:49:24 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2024, 02:46:13 PMDisagree. It's my belief that the one interest group he considers absolutely indispensable is evangelicals. And Israel is their pet.
There are few things Donald Trump loves more than taking advantage of people and pulling something over on people who think he's in their corner.
One theme for the current American radical right is the way they've turned on and jettisoned previous shibboleths and purity tests for their movement. Sure they evangelical right loves Israel, but if Trump could find a way to turn his base against Israel for his own gain (or ego) he'd have no compunction not to. And if the Trump base is given a choice between Trump or Israel, I think they'll break for Trump in large numbers.
EDIT: Not right now, of course. But soon enough.
I think you're overstating the case. This maybe describes free trade. And maybe pussy grabbing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2024, 05:23:47 PMI think you're overstating the case. This maybe describes free trade. And maybe pussy grabbing.
It's my read on his character and way of operating, and I think it's a line that runs through pretty much everything I've learned about his business and political doings.
I'd flip it around... are you aware of any time where Trump has chosen to not throw someone under the bus and/or stay loyal to them over protecting his ego or taking profit?
Quote from: Jacob on March 28, 2024, 06:09:21 PMI'd flip it around... are you aware of any time where Trump has chosen to not throw someone under the bus and/or stay loyal to them over protecting his ego or taking profit?
Outside his family I haven't seen any loyalty displayed. But I'm talking about political calculation, not personal loyalty.
The evangelical right accepted that he is an embodiment of pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony and sloth, his divorces, his de facto pro choice views, fucking porn stars etc.
Why would not supporting Israel all of a sudden turn them away? Seems fairly inconsequential when you glorify this person.
This basically confirms what I was already saying, the Democrats are hopelessly in thrall to Hamas, putting Biden's political relationship with the extremist left above Israel's security and ability to defeat Hamas:
https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-794267
QuoteUS refused to give Israel some weapons for Gaza war, general says
"Although we've been supporting them with capability, they've not received everything they've asked for," said General Charles Q. Brown, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.
By REUTERS
MARCH 28, 2024 21:18
Updated: MARCH 28, 2024 21:20
The United States' top general said on Thursday that Israel had not received every weapon that it had asked for, in part because US President Joe Biden's administration was not willing to provide at least some of them.
Washington gives $3.8 billion in annual military assistance to Israel, its longtime ally. The United States has been rushing air defenses and munitions to Israel, but some Democrats and Arab American groups have criticized the Biden administration's steadfast support of Israel, which they say provides it with a sense of impunity.
"Although we've been supporting them with capability, they've not received everything they've asked for," said General Charles Q. Brown, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Israel asked for stuff 'we are not willing to provide'
"Some of that is because they've asked for stuff that we either don't have the capacity to provide or are not willing to provide, not right now," Brown added while speaking at an event hosted by the Defense Writers Group.
The Israeli offensive prompted opposition from within Biden's Democratic Party, leading thousands to vote "uncommitted" for him in recent party presidential primaries.
US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin met with Defense Minister Yoav Gallant in Washington earlier this week, and the Pentagon said that security assistance for Israel had been discussed.
Quotethey've not received everything they've asked for,
QuoteThis basically confirms what I was already saying, the Democrats are hopelessly in thrall to Hamas, putting Biden's political relationship with the extremist left above Israel's security and ability to defeat Hamas:
(https://i0.wp.com/radiant-culture.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/A-Word-of-Encouragment-to-the-Weary-1.jpg?resize=1024%2C575&ssl=1)
$3.8 billion in military assistance a year.
Europe : Lousy freeloaders. Let Russia have them.
Israel : whatever they want they need to get it or the president is a Islamic fundamentalist far left commie nazi
Quote from: Josquius on March 29, 2024, 10:23:22 AMEurope : Lousy freeloaders. Let Russia have them.
Israel : whatever they want they need to get it or the president is a Islamic fundamentalist far left commie nazi
If this is the only line of reasoning to let you vote Trump without admitting you are an utter fool, what can you do?
From the Wallstreet Journal Opinion by Elliot Kaufman
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/opinion-history-goes-to-war-in-the-holy-land/ar-BB1kLom6?cvid=64bc885ff2ff4754d3c9d29a0a0fa629&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=22&sc=shoreline
QuoteThe dogs of the neighborhood perk up to greet me at Benny Morris's front gate in this middle-of-nowhere town in central Israel. The great historian, shaggy-haired, in T-shirt, open flannel and socks, has recently returned home from the U.K., where the barking did not cease.
He was there to debate a hard-line anti-Israel scholar and speak at the London School of Economics, where some students tried and failed to shut down his lecture with droning, preplanned slogans. "You're actually quite boring," Mr. Morris, 75, told them, at which point he was called a racist, doubtless in the expectation that he, a liberal, would be cowed by the slur. He wasn't. "I'd rather be a racist than a bore," he replied.
Mr. Morris was once the toast of the campuses. "I was sort of a symbol on the left," he says on his back porch. "I don't want to say 'icon.' " If he won't, I will. Mr. Morris was foremost among the "New Historians" who shook Israel in the 1980s and seemed to triumph in the 1990s with their revisionist accounts of the Arab-Israeli conflict. His 1988 book, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-49," was a landmark in Israel's self-criticism and understanding. That same year, Mr. Morris spent 19 days in Israeli military prison for refusing to serve on reserve duty in the West Bank.
How did he go from there to the shouting match at LSE? To many on the left, Mr. Morris says, "I seem to have turned anti-Palestinian in the year 2000," when Prime Minister Ehud Barak and President Bill Clinton offered a two-state solution and Yasser Arafat rejected it. "I thought this was a terrible decision by the Palestinians, and I wrote that." When the Palestinians, in response to the offer of peace and statehood, then launched a wave of terrorism and suicide bombings unlike any before it, Mr. Morris disapproved of that, too. "I began to write journalism against the Palestinians, their decisions and policies," he says, "and this was considered treachery."
Mr. Morris was suddenly out of step "because people always forgive the Palestinians, who don't take responsibility," he says. "It's accepted that they are the victim and therefore can do whatever they like." Mr. Morris doesn't contest the claim of victimhood but sees it on both sides. "Righteous Victims" is the title of his 1999 history of the conflict.
Israel is viewed as "all-powerful vis-à-vis the Palestinians," he says. "But as we see it, we are surrounded by the Muslim world, organized in some way by Iran, and the West is turning its back on us. So we see ourselves as the underdog." Try that on a college campus. "Now, the Palestinians are the underdog, and the underdog is always right, even if it does the wrong things," he says, "like Oct. 7."
The West hasn't reckoned with Oct. 7. Not the massacre itself, which is at once too hard to fathom and too easy to condemn, but the broad support for it among Palestinians. "They were joyous in the West Bank and Gaza Strip when 1,200 Jews were killed and 250 were taken hostage," Mr. Morris says. Palestinian support for the atrocities has remained constant, at over 70%, in opinion polls.
Mr. Morris tries to see it from their point of view: "700,000 Palestinians had become refugees as a result of Israel and its victory in '48. They'd been living under occupation since '67. I understand their desire for revenge and to see Israel disappear or very badly hurt."
But that's too easy. "In addition to those history-based grievances, there is Muslim antisemitism, terrorism and a level of barbarism, which for Israelis felt like more than revenge for bad things we've done," he says. "It was a sick ideology and sick people carrying out murder and rape in the name of that ideology."
Mr. Morris stresses the costs of that Palestinian decision. "There was never destruction like what has happened in Gaza over the past five months in any of Israel's wars." In 1967, "Israel conquered the West Bank with almost no houses being destroyed," he says, "and the same applies in '56 in the Gaza Strip, and the same applies in '48. Israel didn't have the firepower to cause such devastation. This is totally new."
He doubts the scale of the suffering will move Palestinian nationalists. "Probably they'll look back to Oct. 7 as a sort of minor victory over Zionism and disregard the casualties which they paid as a result," he says. That's the historical pattern.
"Not only has each of their big decisions made life worse for their people, but they ensure that each time the idea of a two-state solution is proposed, less of Palestine is offered to them," Mr. Morris says. "In 1937, Palestinians were supposed to get 70% of Palestine or more." The Zionists were willing to work with the plan, but the Arabs rejected it and chose violence. "Then, in 1947, the Palestinians were supposed to get 45% of Palestine," with much of Israel's more than 50% comprising desert. The Zionists accepted the partition, and, again, the Palestinians chose violence.
"And then in the Barak-Clinton things," in 2000, "the Palestinians were supposed to get 21%, 22% of Palestine." Instead they launched the second intifada. "Next time," Mr. Morris predicts, "they'll probably get 15%. Each time they're given less of Palestine as a result of being defeated in their efforts to get all of Palestine."
Mr. Morris says 1947 was the best chance for peace, but the Arabs instead tried to block and then crush the new Jewish state. Though they came to see the war as the nakba, or catastrophe, and as the final stage of a Zionist invasion, at the time "they thought they were going to win," Mr. Morris says. "They have a problem explaining to themselves why they lost the war with twice as many Arabs as Jews—100 times as many if you include the Arab states."
One day, Mr. Morris admits, the Palestinian strategy could work. "Somebody coming from Mars would say, 'The Arabs have the numbers. They have the potential for much greater economic and military power, so they're going to win here if they persist in their resistance.' "
Mr. Morris lets that hang in the air. "And yet, one never knows," he says. "Unusual things happen here. Peace might also break out, which would be even more unusual."
Especially now. "Over the decades," Mr. Morris says, "left and center in Israel were willing to go for a two-state solution." Oct. 7 has accelerated the process of convincing those Israelis they were misguided. "Israelis today don't want to look at the two-state solution. Most Israelis fear Hamas would take over the West Bank"—a fear Mr. Morris says is amply justified by Hamas's popularity—"and that it would be a springboard for attacks on Israel, as the Gaza Strip was."
If Oct. 7 pushed Israelis further away from a deal, "internationally, Oct. 7 put the two-state solution back on the table," he observes. "It had been removed from the table. Nobody cared about it. Nobody talked about it. Now it's back on the agenda."
Thus Mr. Morris says the massacre worked. "The terrorism told the international community that a solution must be found, otherwise this will keep going on and on." As if to punctuate his point, the sound of distant Israeli bombing in Gaza makes its way to us. "But," he says, "I don't think anyone can impose a two-state solution, because the Arabs don't want it and the Jews don't want it."
It wouldn't work, anyway. "Palestinians might tactically agree to a two-state solution, but it would never be enough for them. Because they need more territory than the West Bank and Gaza, especially to absorb refugees from Lebanon and Syria. They're too big." They would also need Jordan, as he advocated in "One State, Two States" (2009), or the rest of Israel, as they have always demanded.
The Oct. 7 attack also succeeded by undermining Israeli-Saudi rapprochement, Mr. Morris says, but Iran shouldn't get away with that. "Israel should have used this war to destroy the Iranian nuclear project, and I hope we still will. But this guy, [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, is incompetent," he says. "I don't know if the word 'weakling' is right, but he's cowardly in relation to taking big decisions."
Mr. Morris adds that "Western public opinion over the past 20 years has gradually seen Israel in Netanyahu's image, which has cast a pall over the Jewish state." Israel has suffered a "major turn" in global public opinion, he says, "and it's largely, in my view, because of Netanyahu."
Yet when I ask about the Netanyahu position that is now drawing President Biden's ire, the determination to invade Hamas's last stronghold in Rafah, Mr. Morris's answer is instructive. "The Israeli public, myself included, thinks that we've begun the job and we must finish the job. We must destroy Hamas, and that will include taking Rafah," he says. "In this, Netanyahu is right and in this, most Israelis agree."
Perhaps Mr. Biden has misread Israelis. "If you like Cicero, think of Carthage," Mr. Morris says. "Hamas must be destroyed after what it did. We can't allow that on our southern border, in addition to having Hezbollah on our northern border and Iran, God knows where—we just can't."
Mr. Morris prefers to see the Palestinian movement on its own terms. Thomas Friedman's writing in the New York Times about the Palestinian "dream of independence in their homeland in a state next to Israel" earns a chuckle. "I think the Palestinians regard the Zionist enterprise and the state of Israel which emerged from it as illegitimate, a robber state," Mr. Morris says, "and that the Jews have no right to it. This, I think, all Palestinians believe."
The real conflict "boils down to whether the Jews were right and had the right to come here and settle here and establish a sovereign state," he says. "It's not so much about Israeli behavior at any given point in time."
Mr. Morris made his name exposing the dark side of Israel's founding, but at the end of the day, "I'm a Zionist—I use the word," he says. "I believe that the Jews had a right to establish a state here. The Arabs had a right because they were indigenous here, and the Jews had a right because they were here many, many years before the Arabs and always looked to this land as theirs."
He puts Israel in context: "The Arabs had Arabia, and then another 24 states which emerged afterward. And the Jews have this little sliver of territory which used to belong to us. There's something fair about that," no matter how often it is denounced as a world-historical injustice.
While "most of the Arabs up to the 20th century understood that this had been the Jews' land," Palestinians have radicalized in their denial of Jewish history. "When Clinton mentioned the ancient Jewish temple at Camp David in 2000, Arafat said, 'What temple?' " Mr. Morris recounts. "He basically argued there was no connection of the Jews to the Holy Land at all."
This is also the claim today from Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat's successor, who told the United Nations in 2023, "They dug everywhere and they could not find anything."
Mr. Morris will criticize the Palestinians in moral terms, but he isn't sure he knows what's in their interest better than they do. When I ask what a true friend of the Palestinians would advise, he is conflicted. "A true friend might say, 'Stop killing Israelis and you'll get a deal and you'll get the West Bank,' " he says. "But maybe a true friend, another one, would say, 'The West Bank isn't really enough for the Palestinians. The Jews stole Palestine from you. Just fight on, lose as many people as you can, kill as many Israelis as you can. You'll ultimately get the rest.' "
When I ask what a true friend of Israel would say right now, Mr. Morris doesn't hesitate. "Finish off Hamas," he replies.
Even if one has problems with Israel—occupation, settlements?
"Get rid of Hamas."
Mr. Kaufman is the Journal's letters editor.
Pro-Palestinian protesters disrupt holocaust memorial.
Video in the link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/pro-palestinian-protesters-disrupt-berkeley-013725087.html I think Jos, CC and Viper should watch it. I don't think these people want a two state solution.
QuotePro-Palestinian protesters interrupted the City Council in Berkeley, California, on Tuesday, shouting "Zionist pigs!" and "End Israel!" during a meeting that included a vote on marking Holocaust Remembrance Day, video of the event shared by the Jewish Community Relations Council showed.
The anti-Israel mob also accused members of being "genocide" enablers, "traitors to this country" and "spies for Israel."
The protesters appeared to claim City Council members had been "bought" by the Jewish community, according to the council.
"How much money did these a------- give you?" one person is heard shouting in a video. He adds, "Cowards! Go chase the money! You money suckers!"
The council shared the videos on X, writing: "Yesterday, the Berkeley City Council held its final meeting before a one-month recess. The agenda of the meeting included an item on marking Holocaust Remembrance Day and funding educational programs around this commemoration. There was nothing on the meeting agenda about the Israel-Hamas War. Demonstrators called Jews 'Zionist pigs,' intimidated a Holocaust survivor, stole and threw a Jewish man's phone toward the dais and implied city council members were being bought by the Jewish community. Warning: Explicit language."
Protesters also repeatedly shouted "Lies!" while 89-year-old Holocaust survivor Susanne DeWitt urged the City Council to adopt the Holocaust Remembrance Day proclamation because of a "horrendous surge in antisemitism."
The protesters constantly interrupted DeWitt as she addressed the council and spoke about 1,200 Israelis being killed by Hamas and women being "tortured and raped."
DeWitt was taken to the Dachau Concentration Camp when she was 4 years old, the JCRC said.
"Stop heckling," DeWitt said, turning around to the protesters in the room as the moderator tried to quiet them. "Stop lying!" a protester replied.
"This is a Zionist stronghold," another protester claimed later, pointing to council members. "The city of Berkeley, the people of Berkeley love Palestine."
The protest comes as The University of California, Berkeley campus has been inundated with Pro-Palestinian protests and concerns about antisemitism at the school have risen since the start of the Israel-Hamas war, after Hamas terrorists' unprovoked attack on the country in October.
Last month, pro-Palestinian protesters disrupted an Israeli soldier's speaking event at Berkeley's campus, screaming slurs like at Jewish attendees.
You know somehow I think they don't actually give a fuck about Palestine and actually, you know, hate Jews or something :hmm:
Quote from: Razgovory on March 29, 2024, 11:42:00 PMPro-Palestinian protesters disrupt holocaust memorial.
Video in the link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/pro-palestinian-protesters-disrupt-berkeley-013725087.html I think Jos, CC and Viper should watch it. I don't think these people want a two state solution.
[
Why?
My consistent view on Israel/Palestine has always been there are massive cunts on both sides. I've ran into this sort loads of times in reality and online. Nothing shocking here.
They're a big problem for those with a few brain cells who care about Palestine and absolute gold for Israel shaggers.
The Holocaust denial is particularly idiotic, both in terms of recognising obvious facts and tactically.
Quote from: Josquius on March 30, 2024, 04:39:06 AMWhy?
My consistent view on Israel/Palestine has always been there are massive cunts on both sides. I've ran into this sort loads of times in reality and online. Nothing shocking here.
They're a big problem for those with a few brain cells who care about Palestine and absolute gold for Israel shaggers.
The Holocaust denial is particularly idiotic, both in terms of recognising obvious facts and tactically.
Why are they a big problem for those with a few brain cells who care about Palestine?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 30, 2024, 05:47:12 AMQuote from: Josquius on March 30, 2024, 04:39:06 AMWhy?
My consistent view on Israel/Palestine has always been there are massive cunts on both sides. I've ran into this sort loads of times in reality and online. Nothing shocking here.
They're a big problem for those with a few brain cells who care about Palestine and absolute gold for Israel shaggers.
The Holocaust denial is particularly idiotic, both in terms of recognising obvious facts and tactically.
Why are they a big problem for those with a few brain cells who care about Palestine?
Wonderful ammunition for the Israel can do no wrong crowd to go "look. The Palestinian supporters are just vicious anti semites who want to kill all Israelis. We are the reasonable and balanced ones. Israel really is screwed without us! "
Quote from: Josquius on March 30, 2024, 06:40:53 AMWonderful ammunition for the Israel can do no wrong crowd to go "look. The Palestinian supporters are just vicious anti semites who want to kill all Israelis. We are the reasonable and balanced ones. Israel really is screwed without us! "
Why is that a problem for *you?* If unreasonable people say unreasonable things what has changed?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 30, 2024, 06:54:46 AMQuote from: Josquius on March 30, 2024, 06:40:53 AMWonderful ammunition for the Israel can do no wrong crowd to go "look. The Palestinian supporters are just vicious anti semites who want to kill all Israelis. We are the reasonable and balanced ones. Israel really is screwed without us! "
Why is that a problem for *you?* If unreasonable people say unreasonable things what has changed?
Other unreasonable people use this to fuel their unreasonablness.
It's not a problem for me directly - though theres usually an overlap of stupid views with those that do hurt me, and it helps recruitment to these stupid causes as we've recently seen - but it's certainly a problem for the Palestinians and their supporters.
US, UK, France are critised for dropping aid because armed gangs take them over: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/30/death-at-any-moment-fights-break-out-as-gazans-compete-over-airdropped-aid
This article tries to paint this like a "two sides" problem I feel, yet they cite two examples: one is when a teacher was harassed for "blasphemy" which doesn't strike me as more likely a Muslim thing not a Jewish one, and the second example is about a teacher not allowing Palestinian flags to be displayed: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/29/schools-england-accused-closing-down-debate-israel-gaza-conflict
I remember PSHE was always a joke of a lesson.
Occasionally teacher would hand out some quizzes or such that had to be done and handed in but generally it was a twice weekly sit around and do whatever you want until the hour is up.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 29, 2024, 09:38:25 AMThis basically confirms what I was already saying, the Democrats are hopelessly in thrall to Hamas, putting Biden's political relationship with the extremist left above Israel's security and ability to defeat Hamas:
Is this some kind of joke? Sarcasm?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 29, 2024, 10:13:47 AM$3.8 billion in military assistance a year.
Well it isn't 4 billion so clearly this means Hamas is pulling the strings!
Actually Hamas probably is alright with us backing up Israel, they get to use anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism to go along with nationalism when recruiting.
Quote from: Josquius on March 30, 2024, 04:39:06 AMWhy?
My consistent view on Israel/Palestine has always been there are massive cunts on both sides. I've ran into this sort loads of times in reality and online. Nothing shocking here.
They're a big problem for those with a few brain cells who care about Palestine and absolute gold for Israel shaggers.
The Holocaust denial is particularly idiotic, both in terms of recognising obvious facts and tactically.
How many times do you have to run into this stuff before you start to think something is really wrong with this movement?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 30, 2024, 10:56:23 AMHow many times do you have to run into this stuff before you start to think something is really wrong with this movement?
Let's just say it is a very convenient movement for those who want to mainstream anti-semitism.
Of course the irony is that doing that would only encourage more people to move to Israel.
Why is Ovb imputing the responsibility of Israel's security solely on the shoulders of the US government?
I'm going to stick up for Otto (at least partially).
As far as I understand, Biden is trying to avoid an invasion of Rafah.
Which will likely have terrible consequences for the civilian population, but is also the only way Hamas can be deprived of the resources of Gaza and the current war concluded.
So it's not hard for me to see how this is a betrayal of Israel.
I'd never fuck up my own country or NATO over the ME, but I can definitely see where he's coming from.
Quote from: Josquius on March 30, 2024, 09:59:49 AMOther unreasonable people use this to fuel their unreasonablness.
It's not a problem for me directly - though theres usually an overlap of stupid views with those that do hurt me, and it helps recruitment to these stupid causes as we've recently seen - but it's certainly a problem for the Palestinians and their supporters.
I finally get to my point. Thanks for your patience.
If your objection is unreasonableness, then surely you would object similarly to pro Israelis doing bad things because that will also lead to unreasonableness on the part of pro Palestinians.
If you object to unreasonableness on the part of pro Israelis only, and not the unreasonableness of pro Palestinians, then clearly your logic is tribal and not enlightenment thinking based.
It would mean you've picked a side and principles don't matter to you.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 30, 2024, 10:56:23 AMQuote from: Josquius on March 30, 2024, 04:39:06 AMWhy?
My consistent view on Israel/Palestine has always been there are massive cunts on both sides. I've ran into this sort loads of times in reality and online. Nothing shocking here.
They're a big problem for those with a few brain cells who care about Palestine and absolute gold for Israel shaggers.
The Holocaust denial is particularly idiotic, both in terms of recognising obvious facts and tactically.
How many times do you have to run into this stuff before you start to think something is really wrong with this movement?
As said I'm well aware of the problem of the counter productive idiot branch of Palestinian supporters.
Their existence doesn't make the core argument that Palestinian people are human and deserve to be treat with respect and allowed self determination in any way wrong.
Same question back to you about the far right cheering for Israel.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2024, 02:47:48 AMQuote from: Josquius on March 30, 2024, 09:59:49 AMOther unreasonable people use this to fuel their unreasonablness.
It's not a problem for me directly - though theres usually an overlap of stupid views with those that do hurt me, and it helps recruitment to these stupid causes as we've recently seen - but it's certainly a problem for the Palestinians and their supporters.
I finally get to my point. Thanks for your patience.
If your objection is unreasonableness, then surely you would object similarly to pro Israelis doing bad things because that will also lead to unreasonableness on the part of pro Palestinians.
If you object to unreasonableness on the part of pro Israelis only, and not the unreasonableness of pro Palestinians, then clearly your logic is tribal and not enlightenment thinking based.
It would mean you've picked a side and principles don't matter to you.
The people who support Israel are the ones in power. They make the decisions that can actually influence the situation and potentially save lives.
Pro Palestinian protestors exist on the other side of the conflict to this pro Israeli filter. Their job is to influence public opinion and to try to alter the actions of the government.
Spouting Holocaust denial conspiracy nonsense does nothing but keep things as they are, potentially push opinion further from criticising Israel.
Quote from: Josquius on March 31, 2024, 03:03:51 AMThe people who support Israel are the ones in power. They make the decisions that can actually influence the situation and potentially save lives.
Pro Palestinian protestors exist on the other side of the conflict to this pro Israeli filter. Their job is to influence public opinion and to try to alter the actions of the government.
Spouting Holocaust denial conspiracy nonsense does nothing but keep things as they are, potentially push opinion further from criticising Israel.
Hamas has the power to kill 1,200 Israeli civilians. Iran has the power to deliver weapons to Gaza. The Houthis have the power to disrupt shipping in the Gulf of Aden. The UN has the power to legitimize whoever it wants. Russia and China have the power to veto security council resolution. Russia has the power to destroy all life on earth. The ICC has the power to put people in jail, as long as someone else does the scut work to bring them a defendant.
The people with less power are not always right.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2024, 03:33:59 AMQuote from: Josquius on March 31, 2024, 03:03:51 AMThe people who support Israel are the ones in power. They make the decisions that can actually influence the situation and potentially save lives.
Pro Palestinian protestors exist on the other side of the conflict to this pro Israeli filter. Their job is to influence public opinion and to try to alter the actions of the government.
Spouting Holocaust denial conspiracy nonsense does nothing but keep things as they are, potentially push opinion further from criticising Israel.
Hamas has the power to kill 1,200 Israeli civilians. Iran has the power to deliver weapons to Gaza. The Houthis have the power to disrupt shipping in the Gulf of Aden. The UN has the power to legitimize whoever it wants. Russia and China have the power to veto security council resolution. Russia has the power to destroy all life on earth. The ICC has the power to put people in jail, as long as someone else does the scut work to bring them a defendant.
The people with less power are not always right.
Hamas has the power to kill 1200 Israelis when the Israeli military makes a spectacularly unlikely sequence of failures and everything lines up perfectly for them.
Israel has the power to wipe out the entirety of Gaza. The only hurdles there are political.
I don't get your reasoning that having less power means they're right though?
Quote from: Josquius on March 31, 2024, 03:03:51 AMQuote from: Razgovory on March 30, 2024, 10:56:23 AMQuote from: Josquius on March 30, 2024, 04:39:06 AMWhy?
My consistent view on Israel/Palestine has always been there are massive cunts on both sides. I've ran into this sort loads of times in reality and online. Nothing shocking here.
They're a big problem for those with a few brain cells who care about Palestine and absolute gold for Israel shaggers.
The Holocaust denial is particularly idiotic, both in terms of recognising obvious facts and tactically.
How many times do you have to run into this stuff before you start to think something is really wrong with this movement?
As said I'm well aware of the problem of the counter productive idiot branch of Palestinian supporters.
Their existence doesn't make the core argument that Palestinian people are human and deserve to be treat with respect and allowed self determination in any way wrong.
Same question back to you about the far right cheering for Israel.
The Palestinians are far-right for the most part. They aren't cheering for Israel. You consistently seem to ignore that part of the equation. A good portion of the American far-right hates Jews and don't support Israel.
Quote from: Josquius on March 31, 2024, 05:00:11 AMI don't get your reasoning that having less power means they're right though?
I said having less power does *not* mean you're right. That was in response to your comment that supporters of Israel have more power, which suggested to me that you felt the need to respond by supporting Palestinians, and that by extension well intentioned people should do the same. If you meant something else by your comment pls disregard and clarify meaning.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 31, 2024, 08:35:29 AMThey aren't cheering for Israel.
You and OVB are. You would sacrifice millions of Palestinians to achieve the dream of the far right Israelis.
And OVB has indicated that nothing short of delivering to Israel exactly everything they ask for, when they ask for it is acceptable. Anything else than that equates support to Hamas.
Are you also for the same opinion? Will you also vote for Trump at the next election?
You've asked this question several times. No, I will not vote for Trump. I am not far-right. You might be, you are a nationalist like Trump, but I am not.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 31, 2024, 05:48:54 PMYou've asked this question several times. No, I will not vote for Trump. I am not far-right. You might be, you are a nationalist like Trump, but I am not.
Trump is not a nationalist. He's a moron.
But do you equate not giving everything to Israel as support to Hamas like OVB does?
Trump has said he's a nationalist. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/22/trump-nationalist-926745
No, I don't think that think that failing to give Israel everything it wants is the same as supporting Hamas. :rolleyes:
QuoteI said having less power does *not* mean you're right. That was in response to your comment that supporters of Israel have more power, which suggested to me that you felt the need to respond by supporting Palestinians, and that by extension well intentioned people should do the same. If you meant something else by your comment pls disregard and clarify meaning
Those who want peace and Palestinian rights respected aren't right because they're powerless. They're right because of morality.
Their being the minority position however amplifies the difficulty in seeing change and the effect fringe nuts claiming to be on the same side but...really not, like these pro-Hamas anti-semites, can have.
The rules of the game are fundamentally different for fringe protest movements and established governments.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 31, 2024, 08:35:29 AMThe Palestinians are far-right for the most part. They aren't cheering for Israel. You consistently seem to ignore that part of the equation. A good portion of the American far-right hates Jews and don't support Israel.
1: Hamas are far right. Fatah and the historic Palestinian liberation movement have deep left wing roots.
2: Tonnes of people who support Palestinian rights aren't anti Semitic dicks.
Why are the exceptions somehow particularly relevant in the case of people sympathetic to Palestine but not to Israel supporters? You consistently seem to ignore that part of the equation.
Quote from: Josquius on April 01, 2024, 02:47:22 AMThose who want peace and Palestinian rights respected aren't right because they're powerless. They're right because of morality.
Their being the minority position however amplifies the difficulty in seeing change and the effect fringe nuts claiming to be on the same side but...really not, like these pro-Hamas anti-semites, can have.
The rules of the game are fundamentally different for fringe protest movements and established governments.
So you're saying the effect is worse when fringe nutters with relatively little power engage in egregious behavior than when fringe nutters with more power engage in egregious behavior?
Not sure I see that. Can you please explain the logic behind this assertion or provide evidence of this phenomenon's existence?
Quote from: Josquius on April 01, 2024, 02:47:22 AM1: Hamas are far right. Fatah and the historic Palestinian liberation movement have deep left wing roots.
2: Tonnes of people who support Palestinian rights aren't anti Semitic dicks.
Why are the exceptions somehow particularly relevant in the case of people sympathetic to Palestine but not to Israel supporters? You consistently seem to ignore that part of the equation.
Fatah, has little support and their "socialism" has been more of the 1930's German variety. They are basically fascists. The majority of Palestinians are Far-Right. The majority of Israelis are not far-right. Palestinian fascism is bleeding into the West which is why you have leftists spouting Holocaust Denial.
Let's be quite clear, and this is why I have broken with Biden over his anti-Israel decision--Islamist thought, particularly the Sunni Islamism that developed in the 20th century, is inherently fascist. In fact, most bad ideas the Nazis had, if you swap out some of the vocabulary (e.g. swap out "Aryan" for "believer", "Jew" for "infidel", or sometimes just keep the word "Jew") you have a very similar philosophy to Islamism.
When figures in the West attempt to mitigate or even support Islamists, it is philosophically no different than someone during WWII trying to mitigate or support the Nazis. It is a nearly perfect analogous ideology.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 31, 2024, 09:49:15 PMTrump has said he's a nationalist. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/22/trump-nationalist-926745
No, I don't think that think that failing to give Israel everything it wants is the same as supporting Hamas. :rolleyes:
Trump said he's a strong man.
Trump said he'd fix the Russia-Ukraine war in a day.
Trump said he'd build a wall between Mexico and the US and make Mexico pay for it.
Trump said he'd shoot one of his fans and they'd still vote for him (well, that one is true).
He says a lot of things.
If you believe everything he says, I think you have a more serious problem than you realize Raz.
What makes you think he isn't a Nationalist?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 01, 2024, 08:25:55 AMWhat makes you think he isn't a Nationalist?
First of, because like most Americans, you have no idea what it is to be a nationalist.
Second of, because just saying you are something does not make you be. I can say I'm an attractive, athletic female, that does not make it so.
Third of, Trump will say whatever makes him popular with a specific crowd and garner him votes. Some of his voters are
white nationalists. AKA,
very fine people or KKK supporters. Which you somehow equates with nationalism. I'd invite you again to read Wikipédia's definition of the word, but you will not and keep to your preconceived ideas, just like any extremist. You have your own vision of the world, and anything that challenges it is wrong.
The only expert that matters is you, after all.
Trump is courting everyone on the fringe: far left union leaders, far right racists, ultra religious leaders, and he's hoping that will, like last time, catalyze enough to move the mass of the center of the Republican party and either discourage a portion of the Democrats, or even convince them to vote for him. It worked under Hillary, it might work again here. Given the nature of the electoral college, what he needs is some votes in key States, not millions of votes in all of America.
I often find, when he's interrogated enough to be understandable, that Jos mostly is in the right. It's a bit of a naive world view giving the impression of believing that everything could be solved if we would only emulate the Care Bears a bit more, but I can't really say that that makes him wrong. Far less wrong than the nuts on the fringes at least (glancing at OvB and CC here).
How did I get lumped in with Otto?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 01, 2024, 08:06:52 AMLet's be quite clear, and this is why I have broken with Biden over his anti-Israel decision--Islamist thought, particularly the Sunni Islamism that developed in the 20th century, is inherently fascist. In fact, most bad ideas the Nazis had, if you swap out some of the vocabulary (e.g. swap out "Aryan" for "believer", "Jew" for "infidel", or sometimes just keep the word "Jew") you have a very similar philosophy to Islamism.
When figures in the West attempt to mitigate or even support Islamists, it is philosophically no different than someone during WWII trying to mitigate or support the Nazis. It is a nearly perfect analogous ideology.
There's no greater irony than to claim that one has to support a fascist to avoid supporting fascism.
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." That's the Trumpeter agenda in a single sentence.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2024, 10:02:29 AMHow did I get lumped in with Otto?
Dunno. Maybe opposites attract?
When ruling centrists / liberals like Biden embrace Islamism/Nazism, we all face tough choices.
Quote from: viper37 on April 01, 2024, 09:47:39 AMQuote from: Razgovory on April 01, 2024, 08:25:55 AMWhat makes you think he isn't a Nationalist?
First of, because like most Americans, you have no idea what it is to be a nationalist.
Second of, because just saying you are something does not make you be. I can say I'm an attractive, athletic female, that does not make it so.
Third of, Trump will say whatever makes him popular with a specific crowd and garner him votes. Some of his voters are white nationalists. AKA, very fine people or KKK supporters. Which you somehow equates with nationalism. I'd invite you again to read Wikipédia's definition of the word, but you will not and keep to your preconceived ideas, just like any extremist. You have your own vision of the world, and anything that challenges it is wrong. The only expert that matters is you, after all.
Trump is courting everyone on the fringe: far left union leaders, far right racists, ultra religious leaders, and he's hoping that will, like last time, catalyze enough to move the mass of the center of the Republican party and either discourage a portion of the Democrats, or even convince them to vote for him. It worked under Hillary, it might work again here. Given the nature of the electoral college, what he needs is some votes in key States, not millions of votes in all of America.
You may want to review in English the definition of the word "of" versus "off".
The choice between a fascist and a president that fascists believe supports fascism isn't tough at all. No decent person would embrace fascism merely because of a hysterical claim that the fascism's opponent embraces fascism.
The claims of "fascism" directed at the GOP are tired and overhyped. The active, ongoing harm Biden and his administration are causing to Israel, their support for normalizing Islamism, is immediate and real:
Quote"The overwhelming majority of people in Gaza had nothing to do with the attacks of October 7th, and the families in Gaza whose survival depends on deliveries of aid from Israel are just like our families," he said. "They're mothers and fathers, sons and daughters – want to earn a decent living, send their kids to school, have a normal life. That's who they are; that's what they want. ... We cannot, we must not lose sight of our common humanity."
Biden's SecState said this recently. Which shows the core of their wrongthink.
Families in Gaza prioritize murdering Israelis, and glorifying same, over the safety of their children. Families in Gaza largely cheer on, and celebrate, terrorists. Families in Gaza largely believe Jews deserve mass murder and genocide.
Their families aren't like our families--theirs are evil. There are no true innocents in Gaza, there are just evil adults, and ignorant children who will eventually become evil adults.
Quote from: viper37 on April 01, 2024, 09:47:39 AMQuote from: Razgovory on April 01, 2024, 08:25:55 AMWhat makes you think he isn't a Nationalist?
First of, because like most Americans, you have no idea what it is to be a nationalist.
Second of, because just saying you are something does not make you be. I can say I'm an attractive, athletic female, that does not make it so.
Third of, Trump will say whatever makes him popular with a specific crowd and garner him votes. Some of his voters are white nationalists. AKA, very fine people or KKK supporters. Which you somehow equates with nationalism. I'd invite you again to read Wikipédia's definition of the word, but you will not and keep to your preconceived ideas, just like any extremist. You have your own vision of the world, and anything that challenges it is wrong. The only expert that matters is you, after all.
Trump is courting everyone on the fringe: far left union leaders, far right racists, ultra religious leaders, and he's hoping that will, like last time, catalyze enough to move the mass of the center of the Republican party and either discourage a portion of the Democrats, or even convince them to vote for him. It worked under Hillary, it might work again here. Given the nature of the electoral college, what he needs is some votes in key States, not millions of votes in all of America.
Okay, so Trump isn't a nationalist because... I am wrong?
Otto has entered true believer mode. Anybody wondering how Germans embraced the Nazi party need wonder no longer.
It isn't true believer mode--lots of the overhyped criticisms of the modern GOP have always been just that. Yes, Trump has some fascist tendencies. No, Trump is not going to create a fascist state in the U.S. The Presidency isn't strong enough, nor would he have the legislative or judicial majorities needed to do so.
Trump has negatives, those have to be assessed in any voting decision. None of his negatives include "siding with Islamofascists because of woke leftists making him scared of reelection prospects" like it does for Jihadi Joe Biden.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 01, 2024, 12:13:39 PMIt isn't true believer mode--lots of the overhyped criticisms of the modern GOP have always been just that. Yes, Trump has some fascist tendencies. No, Trump is not going to create a fascist state in the U.S. The Presidency isn't strong enough, nor would he have the legislative or judicial majorities needed to do so.
Trump has negatives, those have to be assessed in any voting decision. None of his negatives include "siding with Islamofascists because of woke leftists making him scared of reelection prospects" like it does for Jihadi Joe Biden.
Trump clearly *wants* to create a one party state, a country in which he gets to decide who holds office, not the voters. If he fails again it will be because a sufficient number of people resisted him.
Two pieces of news wonderfully paired:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/01/wisconsin-union-biden-campaign
QuoteRank-and-file union members back campaign to ditch Biden over Gaza
Wisconsin coalition of low-wage workers and immigrants push back in anger against president's handling of Gaza war
and
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/01/trump-stephen-miller-anti-white-racism-plan
QuoteThe former Trump White House adviser, anti-immigration extremist and white nationalist Stephen Miller is helping drive a plan to tackle supposed "anti-white racism" if Donald Trump returns to power next year, Axios reported.
...
Should Trump return to power, Axios said, Miller and other aides plan to "dramatically change the government's interpretation of civil rights-era laws to focus on 'anti-white racism' rather than discrimination against people of colour".
I appreciate these are difficult times for people: balancing the prospect of being discriminated against by the state, vs. their hatred of Jews.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 01, 2024, 11:32:37 AMOkay, so Trump isn't a nationalist because... I am wrong?
What is a patriot? Is it wrong to be a patriot? Is it wrong to love your country?
I don't see Trump at that kind of men. Sorry.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 01, 2024, 10:28:43 AMWhen ruling centrists / liberals like Biden embrace Islamism/Nazism, we all face tough choices.
Basically, if the GOP because fascists, it's because the Dems pushed them so far.
I have heard this line before.
Are you Hansmeister? I thought you were two different people, but I think I was mistaken.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 01, 2024, 12:13:39 PMIt isn't true believer mode--lots of the overhyped criticisms of the modern GOP have always been just that. Yes, Trump has some fascist tendencies. No, Trump is not going to create a fascist state in the U.S. The Presidency isn't strong enough, nor would he have the legislative or judicial majorities needed to do so.
Hitler only needed a 1/3 of the voters behind him to change things in Germany.
Trump has nearly 50% of them. And he can count on zealots like you that think he's better than Biden, because he's apparently become and Islamo-fascist.
Because he didn't give Israel everything they wanted when they asked for it.
No details of what that entailed, btw. Did they ask for an aircraft carrier group (one more)? For some more nukes (I know they have some)? For classified equipment the US is unwilling to share? Did they say why they needed more of what they got to crush a group that 10x less numerous and equipped than their actual army?
When Russia asks for US help to crush Ukraine, will you gladly approve of your President sending weapons to Russia to crush the fascists?
So what would you have me do, Viper? Support a party where behavior like this increasingly appears to be the direction of the party?
https://twitter.com/HeidiBachram/status/1773629450632020012?s=20
https://x.com/SenJeffMerkley/status/1774513484606095688?s=20
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 01, 2024, 01:05:51 PMSo what would you have me do, Viper? Support a party where behavior like this increasingly appears to be the direction of the party?
https://twitter.com/HeidiBachram/status/1773629450632020012?s=20
https://x.com/SenJeffMerkley/status/1774513484606095688?s=20
There were protests against the government of Israel (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68705643) last week-end.
Should these people have been shot, dispersed, arrested, their house bulldozed and then the properties set off to auction for loyal supporters of the State of Israel?
You've already established that dissension is not permitted.
You have already established that Israel's actions against non Israeli protesters are totally justified.
What should the government do about these people?
The question remains, then, what should your government do. Rubber stamp everything, or try to navigate the storm?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 01, 2024, 01:05:51 PMSo what would you have me do, Viper? Support a party where behavior like this increasingly appears to be the direction of the party?
https://twitter.com/HeidiBachram/status/1773629450632020012?s=20
https://x.com/SenJeffMerkley/status/1774513484606095688?s=20
The first link refers to protesters harassing a Biden supporter.
By your definition, Biden is a Pro-Hamas anti-semite, because his supporters are heckled by Pro-Palestinians/Pro-Hamas far left protestors? It is a very weird stance to make.
Just to make it clear, if a GOP supporter was harassed by a far left protester, that would make him a far left crypto-commie too?
On the second link, I see a Senator criticizing Israel's indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Gaza. Isn't he free to express is own opinion? Do all US GOP Senators and House Members represent to official GOP policy when they speak on Twitter?
Man, what a collection of low quality strawman posts. If that's the best you can do, don't expect a response.
Quote from: viper37 on April 01, 2024, 12:57:59 PMQuote from: Razgovory on April 01, 2024, 11:32:37 AMOkay, so Trump isn't a nationalist because... I am wrong?
What is a patriot? Is it wrong to be a patriot? Is it wrong to love your country?
I don't see Trump at that kind of men. Sorry.
Yeah, that doesn't make any sense. Maybe you should just stop.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 01, 2024, 11:17:29 AMThe claims of "fascism" directed at the GOP are tired and overhyped.
And yet not entirely untrue. There is a fascist element in the party, and its strength is growing. Maybe more Austrofascist or Francoist in flavor then full bore Nazi but the trend is not good.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 01, 2024, 01:05:51 PMSo what would you have me do, Viper? Support a party where behavior like this increasingly appears to be the direction of the party?
https://twitter.com/HeidiBachram/status/1773629450632020012?s=20
https://x.com/SenJeffMerkley/status/1774513484606095688?s=20
So I don't tell people what o do, or who to vote for.
When it comes to the 2024 Presidential election though, the choice is between Trump and Biden. So I would suggest you compare and contract what both Trump and Biden are saying, and what both have done in office - and not compare what their craziest supporters are saying.
What you are doing in the above is "nut-picking" - choosing the craziest supporter of a side and then holding it up as emblematic of the entire side. A person can certainly do that against MAGA as well - but remember you're voting for Trump, not Marjorie Taylor Greene or Lauren Boebert.
So, personally, I can criticize Joe Biden a half dozen ways from Sunday, but I would give my all-unimportant non-citizen non-vote to Joe Biden.
Something I've noticed with the Pro-Pals. They want "intifada" A common slogan is "There is only one solution: Intifada revolution! And "Globalize the Intifada" There's a website called "Electronic intifada". Do these people know what they are saying? Most of them are too young to remember that last Intifada, but it was a catastrophe. Thousands of people died, it did the Palestinians no good, and basically killed the peace process. The whole thing is shocking and horrifying.
The guy who runs Electronic intifada is a Muslim who lives in America (Chicago). They do know what they are saying, which is why we have to oppose them.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 01, 2024, 03:30:02 PMSomething I've noticed with the Pro-Pals. They want "intifada" A common slogan is "There is only one solution: Intifada revolution! And "Globalize the Intifada" There's a website called "Electronic intifada". Do these people know what they are saying? Most of them are too young to remember that last Intifada, but it was a catastrophe. Thousands of people died, it did the Palestinians no good, and basically killed the peace process. The whole thing is shocking and horrifying.
I personally haven't heard that particular term related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but yeah an intifada would only massively empower the Israeli right wing and lead to mass death among the Palestinians and set their interests back considerably. So obviously that would be very counter-productive to anybody who wants to see the suffering of the Palestinians to end and for some kind of peaceful settlement that will allow the Palestinians to start living their lives in peace again to happen.
But you are assuming that those pro-Palestine people actually give two shits about Palestinians and don't just want to kill jews or win some great victory for the greater glory of Palestine at the expense of the ordinary people, who must die for the glory of the nation or whatever.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 01, 2024, 03:34:30 PMThe guy who runs Electronic intifada is a Muslim who lives in America (Chicago). They do know what they are saying, which is why we have to oppose them.
I guess it is easy to call for others to die when you are on the other side of the planet.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 01, 2024, 01:56:32 PMQuote from: viper37 on April 01, 2024, 12:57:59 PMQuote from: Razgovory on April 01, 2024, 11:32:37 AMOkay, so Trump isn't a nationalist because... I am wrong?
What is a patriot? Is it wrong to be a patriot? Is it wrong to love your country?
I don't see Trump at that kind of men. Sorry.
Yeah, that doesn't make any sense. Maybe you should just stop.
See, you have zero notion of what it is being a nationalist, but you are convinced it is wrong because someone told you so.
It's no different than your average GOPtard.
Try to think for yourself for once.
Viper, I don't understand what "I don't see Trump at that kind of men. Sorry." even means, so just stop. You aren't even coherent anymore.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 01, 2024, 03:34:30 PMThe guy who runs Electronic intifada is a Muslim who lives in America (Chicago). They do know what they are saying, which is why we have to oppose them.
And the way to oppose them is to vote for Biden. The pro-Pals in the vids you linked harassed Biden supporters; they don't harass Trump supporters, because they recognize that they are on the same side.
Quote from: viper37 on April 01, 2024, 04:52:13 PMSee, you have zero notion of what it is being a nationalist, but you are convinced it is wrong because someone told you so.
It's no different than your average GOPtard.
Try to think for yourself for once.
I am certain that you do not know what nationalism is, because you would not be spewing this crap if you did. Nationalism is love of a nation: a set of people with supposedly-distinct characteristics, against everyone who is not part of that nation because they do not share the characteristics. Nations are not states. Nationalists are not patriots.
The irony of the soft fascists that says that they have to support Trump because Biden does not kowtow to foreign interests and then claim that they are patriots for opposing decency and empathy is clear. They have instead, to support a man who
1. openly admits that he wants to be a dictator,
2. openly claims that he cannot lose an election and any election he does lose is only lost because of some vague and evidence-free "rigging,"
3. openly decries the separation of church and declares himself to be a Christian despite not knowing the bible and never attending church services,
4. loudly proclaims that those who rose up in insurrection and stormed the capital with the express desire to murder the Vice-president of the United States are, in fact, patriots and political prisoner (despite calling for their punishment when he was president), and
5. openly declares his intention to use the office of the POTUS to punish his political opponents.
No American patriot could possibly support such a man, even if his opponent was four years alder than him and will not suck Netanyahu's cock like Trump wants to.
Not even the Israelis themselves agree with Adolf von Bismarck: Jerusalem protests show rage against Netanyahu is no longer waiting for the end of the war (https://www.timesofisrael.com/jerusalem-protests-show-rage-against-netanyahu-is-no-longer-waiting-for-the-end-of-the-war/).
Quote from: grumbler on April 01, 2024, 07:18:44 PMQuote from: viper37 on April 01, 2024, 04:52:13 PMSee, you have zero notion of what it is being a nationalist, but you are convinced it is wrong because someone told you so.
It's no different than your average GOPtard.
Try to think for yourself for once.
I am certain that you do not know what nationalism is, because you would not be spewing this crap if you did. Nationalism is love of a nation: a set of people with supposedly-distinct characteristics, against everyone who is not part of that nation because they do not share the characteristics. Nations are not states. Nationalists are not patriots.
Nationalism is an idea and movement that holds that the nation should be congruent with the state.[1][2] As a movement, it presupposes the existence[3] and tends to promote the interests of a particular nation,[4] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining its sovereignty (self-governance) over its perceived homeland to create a nation-state. It holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity,[5] and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power.[4][6] It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on a combination of shared social characteristics such as culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history,[7][8] and to promote national unity or solidarity.[4] Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve and foster a nation's traditional culture.[9] There are various definitions of a "nation", which leads to different types of nationalism.[10] The two main divergent forms identified by scholars are ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism. How is that evil?
Further more:
Le nationalisme est un principe politique1 apparu à la fin du XVIIIe siècle, tendant à légitimer l'existence d'un État-nation pour chaque peuple, défini par des caractéristiques propres et communes à ses membres, comme une langue, des traditions historiques et culturelles ou des valeurs politiques. Initialement le nationalisme est opposé à la royauté (régime politique qui en France sera ensuite nommé Ancien Régime). Il s'impose progressivement en Europe au cours du XIXe siècle et se traduit au début du XXe siècle par la disparition de quatre empires multiethniques et autocratiques : les deux Empires centraux germaniques, le russe et le turc. Depuis son avènement, le nationalisme apparaît comme une évidence dans la vie politique et sociale2. Translation:Nationalism is a political principle1 that appeared at the end of the 18th century, tending to legitimize the existence of a nation-state for each people, defined by characteristics specific to and common to its members, such as a language, historical and cultural traditions. or political values. Initially nationalism was opposed to royalty (a political regime which in France would later be called the Ancien Régime). It gradually established itself in Europe during the 19th century and resulted at the beginning of the 20th century in the disappearance of four multi-ethnic and autocratic empires: the two Germanic Central Empires, the Russian and the Turkish. Since its advent, nationalism has appeared as evidence in political and social life2.Again, nothing evil here. Nothing that says you should build a wall between Mexico and the US, nothing that says you should park immigrants in detention centers, nothing that says Donald Trump is a nationalist, nothing that screams "White Power!" and concentration camps as Raz and so many other implies.
Patriotism is loving one's country. You have your border, you have already achieved self determination, you control your own government. A nation has no border, no complete control over its government, or no government at all. There's nothing wrong for a Cherokee to be proud of his/her identity. There's nothing wrong for an Israeli to be proud of his identity. There's nothing wrong for an American to be proud and celebrate the 4th of July.
There's always a problem when it comes to excess, like everything else in life.
How many laps has this thread's core argument run now?
Quote from: viper37 on April 01, 2024, 08:06:24 PMHow is that evil?
The bit about excluding people who don't fit the characteristics set by the nationalists for belonging to the nation.
FWIW nationalism is pretty obviously evil and fueled many wars and genocides. Viper tries to sugarcoat it because he is a Francophone nationalist, a pretty infamously shitty group of people.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 01, 2024, 09:52:25 PMHow many laps has this thread's core argument run now?
I haven't even posted my thing about how, really, Palestine is a queer issue.
The "nationalism is evil" talking point is obviously false, and is just a smear used to tell peoples like Finns, Estonians etc that they should give up sovereignty and embrace a place in the Russian state project de jour. It's also used against people who feel that a Jewish state should be allowed to exist. It can be safely disregarded.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 01, 2024, 11:06:33 PMQuote from: Tonitrus on April 01, 2024, 09:52:25 PMHow many laps has this thread's core argument run now?
I haven't even posted my thing about how, really, Palestine is a queer issue.
You think you are joking, but then you have probably missed Queers for Palestine's open letter to Eurovision's participants to boycott due to Israel being represented. Which they politely declined by the way.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 01, 2024, 07:56:46 AMQuote from: Josquius on April 01, 2024, 02:47:22 AM1: Hamas are far right. Fatah and the historic Palestinian liberation movement have deep left wing roots.
2: Tonnes of people who support Palestinian rights aren't anti Semitic dicks.
Why are the exceptions somehow particularly relevant in the case of people sympathetic to Palestine but not to Israel supporters? You consistently seem to ignore that part of the equation.
Fatah, has little support and their "socialism" has been more of the 1930's German variety. They are basically fascists. The majority of Palestinians are Far-Right. The majority of Israelis are not far-right. Palestinian fascism is bleeding into the West which is why you have leftists spouting Holocaust Denial.
You might want to learn some history.
I'm not big on this revolutionary nationalist strain of socialism either- not just in Palestine but elsewhere in the world too.
But its roots are squarely on the left.
Its interesting as despite being a completely alien situation you can sort of see parallels in Palestine for modern politics in Europe, with a big part of Hamas managing to/being supported in becoming a big opponent to the Palestinian establishment being out of this idea that the socialists have failed so lets completely flip and support fascists.
QuoteSo you're saying the effect is worse when fringe nutters with relatively little power engage in egregious behavior than when fringe nutters with more power engage in egregious behavior?
Not sure I see that. Can you please explain the logic behind this assertion or provide evidence of this phenomenon's existence?
In terms of getting their point across yes.
Those in power already broadly accept the arguments of the pro-Israel crazies. They've nothing to win. It is possible their actions could cause a recoil but this would take serious effort.
I suppose you could argue that they actually want more, they want the full OVB cleansing of Palestine, and they're some way off getting this... but then that's their problem. There are no moderates wanting this same thing.
Those calling for Palestinian rights however are pushing a boulder uphill. Its already a difficult and time consuming challenge even without people supposedly helping them taking actions that do nothing but make the rock heavier.
Quote from: Tamas on April 02, 2024, 02:46:12 AMQuote from: Razgovory on April 01, 2024, 11:06:33 PMQuote from: Tonitrus on April 01, 2024, 09:52:25 PMHow many laps has this thread's core argument run now?
I haven't even posted my thing about how, really, Palestine is a queer issue.
You think you are joking, but then you have probably missed Queers for Palestine's open letter to Eurovision's participants to boycott due to Israel being represented. Which they politely declined by the way.
I'm not joking.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2024, 09:56:55 PMQuote from: viper37 on April 01, 2024, 08:06:24 PMHow is that evil?
The bit about excluding people who don't fit the characteristics set by the nationalists for belonging to the nation.
There is no one excluded.
A nation is formed around a core of people. That is only normal.
America wasn't formed around the Spanish and the French and the Dutch and the Black slaves. It was formed around the former British citizens who opposed the crown. This is who the majority were, even if some were of Dutch, German, Irish or Scottish origins, their language was English. Not Spanish, not Dutch, not French, not Creole, not Cherokee, not Mohawk.
They identified as Americans, and they were fighting the British and their Indian allies.
Their history does not say it was wrong.
Quote from: Josquius on April 02, 2024, 03:34:34 AMQuote from: Razgovory on April 01, 2024, 07:56:46 AMQuote from: Josquius on April 01, 2024, 02:47:22 AM1: Hamas are far right. Fatah and the historic Palestinian liberation movement have deep left wing roots.
2: Tonnes of people who support Palestinian rights aren't anti Semitic dicks.
Why are the exceptions somehow particularly relevant in the case of people sympathetic to Palestine but not to Israel supporters? You consistently seem to ignore that part of the equation.
Fatah, has little support and their "socialism" has been more of the 1930's German variety. They are basically fascists. The majority of Palestinians are Far-Right. The majority of Israelis are not far-right. Palestinian fascism is bleeding into the West which is why you have leftists spouting Holocaust Denial.
You might want to learn some history.
I'm not big on this revolutionary nationalist strain of socialism either- not just in Palestine but elsewhere in the world too.
But its roots are squarely on the left.
Its interesting as despite being a completely alien situation you can sort of see parallels in Palestine for modern politics in Europe, with a big part of Hamas managing to/being supported in becoming a big opponent to the Palestinian establishment being out of this idea that the socialists have failed so lets completely flip and support fascists.
I have learned some history. Fatah is Arab Socialism. Like Syria and Saddam Hussein. It's just Nationalism. With the word "socialism" tacked on.
Go back and reread the definitions. You yourself posted, and you will see that there is indeed a necessary exclusion of others from the national identity.
Fatah was "socialist" because they came to being during the era of "liberation armies" funded by the Soviets and their satellites. If little green men took up their cause and funneled them explosives and hard currency they would have been Martianists. In areas under Fatah control there is plenty of corruption. Socialism, not so much.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2024, 09:56:55 PMQuote from: viper37 on April 01, 2024, 08:06:24 PMHow is that evil?
The bit about excluding people who don't fit the characteristics set by the nationalists for belonging to the nation.
That's inherent of the concept group:
Some people are in, some are out (how else to define what the group is), some can get in, some want out, others will never get in and some others don't want to get in.
And yes, in general the people who make up the group get to decide what the group is and who is part of it.
A group that contains everyone is not a group, it's just everyone. And that's not going to happen, except at some high almost abstract level since we're all individuals and gravitate towards people that are like 'us' (and 'us' has a great many options here). And the people that are 'us' know they are not 'them'.
It's human, and humans are tribal.
Yes, and that is the problem of Nationalism. It creates tribalism on a national scale.
Yeah, tribalism is what's we have sports for. No need to foment it in places that matter.
I find the distinction between nationalism and patriotism a bit semantic. Like, I know what it's getting at and think the distinction is worth making - but I don't know if cramming the distinction in to the definition of those two words is always appropriate.
From my perspective the idea that "I love my country, its people, its values, and its many peculiarities. I'm willing to work hard and potentially make sacrifices for the sake of my country. I also enjoy it when people representing my country do well" is pretty core to human behaviour and identity (with the caveat that "country" could be other groupings at different times).
There's a shitty version that then adds "... so therefore I'm going to being a shitty bigot to people who don't belong to my country and/or not care about negative things happening to people who aren't from here. I'll also be a harsh gatekeeper for who I consider belonging to me country 'for real' and exclude folks I don't like. I will get highly offended at any criticism of my country, whether legitimate or not. Additionally, I'll be easily bamboozled by flag waving and country-loving rhetoric. Loving my country is all about being in an ingroup that I can benefit from, while externalizing the costs to members of various outgroups."
There's a positive version that adds "... so I will be inclusive and welcoming to those who belong to my country, and find ways to work together and unify. I won't be a jerk to people from other countries, but rather I'll find commonality with them in how they love their countries the way I love mine. I will generally take criticism of my country (especially internal criticism) as a way to continually work to make it a better place."
... more or less.
If someone wants to call the first (bad) one "nationalism" and the second (good) one "patriotism" that's fine, but it doesn't mean that people who call themselves "nationalists" don't conform to the second (good) set of attitudes, or that people who call themselves "patriots" don't conform to the first (bad) set of attitudes.
The two set of sentiments are pretty closely related, IMO, and I think there's a bit of semantic treadmill going on with giving them separate names.
The problem with nationalism is how nationalists define the "its people" part of your definition. If it is defined as everybody who becomes a citizen regardless of ethnicity, religion, or some other signifier then you are talking about something other than nationalism.
"Patriotism" isn't a political program. "Nationalism" is. Leaving every question of good/bad aside, they are apples and oranges.
The question was "is Trump a Nationalist" Viper said no, because Americans don't understand the word.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2024, 01:20:38 PMThe problem with nationalism is how nationalists define the "its people" part of your definition. If it is defined as everybody who becomes a citizen regardless of ethnicity, religion, or some other signifier then you are talking about something other than nationalism.
I agree that the problem lies in how "the people" is defined. I disagree that it's clearcut that "if it's nationalist it's exclusive; while if it's inclusive, it's not nationalism."
There's a strong inclusive strain in Scottish nationalism - "we're all Jock Tamson's bairns" and all that. Similarly, from discussions here it seems Quebec nationalists are fairly inclusive - as long as you're in Quebec and you consider yourself to belong, then you're Quebecois regardless of colour, creed, and origin.
I mean, I guess we can say "you're doing it wrong and you're not actually nationalists" to people who call themselves nationalists and whose big political project is national independence because they're inclusive about who they consider belonging to their nation, but I'm personally not that convinced by that line of reasoning.
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2024, 01:39:43 PMThere's a strong inclusive strain in Scottish nationalism - "we're all Jock Tamson's bairns" and all that. Similarly, from discussions here it seems Quebec nationalists are fairly inclusive - as long as you're in Quebec and you consider yourself to belong, then you're Quebecois regardless of colour, creed, and origin.
I mean, I guess we can say "you're doing it wrong and you're not actually nationalists" to people who call themselves nationalists and whose big political project is national independence because they're inclusive about who they consider belonging to their nation, but I'm personally not that convinced by that line of reasoning.
I can't speak to how Scottish Nationalists conduct themselves. But I had the misfortune of reading your characterization of Quebec Nationalists while sipping my coffee. The mess is now cleaned up and I can now respond by saying, have you had a read of the the legislation regarding language and religious freedoms. You know, the ones that start with a notwithstanding clause so as to avoid being struck down by a Charter challenge. How are those laws consistent with your claim that about how inclusive Quebec is?
I just want to say that in the context of this particular situation my critique of nationalism is putting the victory of Palestine or Israel above the interests of the people. Like me the glorious leader of Hamas, from my safe base in Qatar, demand victory of Palestine and will happily sacrifice millions of Palestinians for that goal.
Or certain elements of the Israeli right wing, happy to escalate the situation and empower Hamas for the purposes of securing the whole area for Israel and...um...getting rid of the dangerous and scary Palestinians in some vague but probably terrifying way.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2024, 03:25:36 PMI can't speak to how Scottish Nationalists conduct themselves. But I had the misfortune of reading your characterization of Quebec Nationalists while sipping my coffee. The mess is now cleaned up and I can now respond by saying, have you had a read of the the legislation regarding language and religious freedoms. You know, the ones that start with a notwithstanding clause so as to avoid being struck down by a Charter challenge. How are those laws consistent with your claim that about how inclusive Quebec is?
Sorry about the mess :(
My argument is that there are Quebec nationalists (who call themselves "nationalist") and who are inclusive in the way they view their nationalism. Who think of their nationalism in terms that the label "patriotism" was used earlier in the thread.
At the same time there are also Quebec nationalists (who call themselves "nationalist") who are exclusionary in how they view their nationalism.
That you've identified what you consider exclusionary bad nationalists does not really undermine the point that nationalism takes different forms for different people, and that the "patriot vs nationalist" dichotomy is not necessarily widely shared.
If you're looking for a rousing argument where you can lay out your opinions on Quebec, you'll have to find someone else to have it with as I'm not interested.
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2024, 05:56:45 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2024, 03:25:36 PMI can't speak to how Scottish Nationalists conduct themselves. But I had the misfortune of reading your characterization of Quebec Nationalists while sipping my coffee. The mess is now cleaned up and I can now respond by saying, have you had a read of the the legislation regarding language and religious freedoms. You know, the ones that start with a notwithstanding clause so as to avoid being struck down by a Charter challenge. How are those laws consistent with your claim that about how inclusive Quebec is?
Sorry about the mess :(
My argument is that there are Quebec nationalists (who call themselves "nationalist") and who are inclusive in the way they view their nationalism. Who think of their nationalism in terms that the label "patriotism" was used earlier in the thread.
At the same time there are also Quebec nationalists (who call themselves "nationalist") who are exclusionary in how they view their nationalism.
That you've identified what you consider exclusionary bad nationalists does not really undermine the point that nationalism takes different forms for different people, and that the "patriot vs nationalist" dichotomy is not necessarily widely shared.
If you're looking for a rousing argument where you can lay out your opinions on Quebec, you'll have to find someone else to have it with as I'm not interested.
I am identifying an objective fact. The laws on their books. And those laws defy the generous characterization you are giving to Quebec nationalists.
The concept of the nation-state has become so universal that we refer to the "United Nations" even though it includes only nation-states and not such nations as the Navajo nation of the US "Christian nation." It should be called the "United States" but that name has already been taken by a number of nation-states. United nation-states is too cumbersome.
But, in any case, the difference between nationalists and patriots is exactly what the Brain said; nationalism is a political movement with political goals that want to advance the cause of their "nation." I don't think that you will get a nationalist to agree that everyone inside a given border is part of their nation. Their concept of nation includes everyone in their group regardless of where they live.
As regards Trump, I don't believe that he is a nationalist, because nationalism involves people other than Trump. Trump is a Trumpist; what's good for Donald Trump is good, and what's not good for Donald Trump is bad, not matter who or what is under consideration. His nation has only one member if he's a "nationalist."
Quote from: grumbler on April 02, 2024, 09:18:59 PMAs regards Trump, I don't believe that he is a nationalist, because nationalism involves people other than Trump. Trump is a Trumpist; what's good for Donald Trump is good, and what's not good for Donald Trump is bad, not matter who or what is under consideration. His nation has only one member if he's a "nationalist."
Yes. Though he does what a lot of egomaniacal leaders do and confuses himself with the nation.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2024, 08:37:35 PMQuote from: Jacob on April 02, 2024, 05:56:45 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2024, 03:25:36 PMI can't speak to how Scottish Nationalists conduct themselves. But I had the misfortune of reading your characterization of Quebec Nationalists while sipping my coffee. The mess is now cleaned up and I can now respond by saying, have you had a read of the the legislation regarding language and religious freedoms. You know, the ones that start with a notwithstanding clause so as to avoid being struck down by a Charter challenge. How are those laws consistent with your claim that about how inclusive Quebec is?
Sorry about the mess :(
My argument is that there are Quebec nationalists (who call themselves "nationalist") and who are inclusive in the way they view their nationalism. Who think of their nationalism in terms that the label "patriotism" was used earlier in the thread.
At the same time there are also Quebec nationalists (who call themselves "nationalist") who are exclusionary in how they view their nationalism.
That you've identified what you consider exclusionary bad nationalists does not really undermine the point that nationalism takes different forms for different people, and that the "patriot vs nationalist" dichotomy is not necessarily widely shared.
If you're looking for a rousing argument where you can lay out your opinions on Quebec, you'll have to find someone else to have it with as I'm not interested.
I am identifying an objective fact. The laws on their books. And those laws defy the generous characterization you are giving to Quebec nationalists.
:hmm:
Is everyone affected by the laws of Quebec also a Quebec nationalist? Even if that law, by your arguments, excludes them?
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 03, 2024, 08:02:35 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2024, 08:37:35 PMQuote from: Jacob on April 02, 2024, 05:56:45 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2024, 03:25:36 PMI can't speak to how Scottish Nationalists conduct themselves. But I had the misfortune of reading your characterization of Quebec Nationalists while sipping my coffee. The mess is now cleaned up and I can now respond by saying, have you had a read of the the legislation regarding language and religious freedoms. You know, the ones that start with a notwithstanding clause so as to avoid being struck down by a Charter challenge. How are those laws consistent with your claim that about how inclusive Quebec is?
Sorry about the mess :(
My argument is that there are Quebec nationalists (who call themselves "nationalist") and who are inclusive in the way they view their nationalism. Who think of their nationalism in terms that the label "patriotism" was used earlier in the thread.
At the same time there are also Quebec nationalists (who call themselves "nationalist") who are exclusionary in how they view their nationalism.
That you've identified what you consider exclusionary bad nationalists does not really undermine the point that nationalism takes different forms for different people, and that the "patriot vs nationalist" dichotomy is not necessarily widely shared.
If you're looking for a rousing argument where you can lay out your opinions on Quebec, you'll have to find someone else to have it with as I'm not interested.
I am identifying an objective fact. The laws on their books. And those laws defy the generous characterization you are giving to Quebec nationalists.
:hmm:
Is everyone affected by the laws of Quebec also a Quebec nationalist? Even if that law, by your arguments, excludes them?
I'm not sure what your point is. Everyone in Quebec is certainly affected by the laws of the government of Quebec. Jacob claimed that Quebec nationalists are welcoming of everyone of every Creed. The law prohibiting the display of religious symbols is completely inconsistent with that claim.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2024, 09:18:28 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on April 03, 2024, 08:02:35 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2024, 08:37:35 PMQuote from: Jacob on April 02, 2024, 05:56:45 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2024, 03:25:36 PMI can't speak to how Scottish Nationalists conduct themselves. But I had the misfortune of reading your characterization of Quebec Nationalists while sipping my coffee. The mess is now cleaned up and I can now respond by saying, have you had a read of the the legislation regarding language and religious freedoms. You know, the ones that start with a notwithstanding clause so as to avoid being struck down by a Charter challenge. How are those laws consistent with your claim that about how inclusive Quebec is?
Sorry about the mess :(
My argument is that there are Quebec nationalists (who call themselves "nationalist") and who are inclusive in the way they view their nationalism. Who think of their nationalism in terms that the label "patriotism" was used earlier in the thread.
At the same time there are also Quebec nationalists (who call themselves "nationalist") who are exclusionary in how they view their nationalism.
That you've identified what you consider exclusionary bad nationalists does not really undermine the point that nationalism takes different forms for different people, and that the "patriot vs nationalist" dichotomy is not necessarily widely shared.
If you're looking for a rousing argument where you can lay out your opinions on Quebec, you'll have to find someone else to have it with as I'm not interested.
I am identifying an objective fact. The laws on their books. And those laws defy the generous characterization you are giving to Quebec nationalists.
:hmm:
Is everyone affected by the laws of Quebec also a Quebec nationalist? Even if that law, by your arguments, excludes them?
I'm not sure what your point is. Everyone in Quebec is certainly affected by the laws of the government of Quebec. Jacob claimed that Quebec nationalists are welcoming of everyone of every Creed. The law prohibiting the display of religious symbols is completely inconsistent with that claim.
Quebec nationalism isn't unified under one party or one banner, especially not the banner of the CAQ.
Quebec Solidaire, a nationalist party, is vehemently against the law prohibiting the display of religious symbols and they would argue for themselves that they are a inclusive nationalist party.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 03, 2024, 10:19:41 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2024, 09:18:28 AMQuote from: Grey Fox on April 03, 2024, 08:02:35 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2024, 08:37:35 PMQuote from: Jacob on April 02, 2024, 05:56:45 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2024, 03:25:36 PMI can't speak to how Scottish Nationalists conduct themselves. But I had the misfortune of reading your characterization of Quebec Nationalists while sipping my coffee. The mess is now cleaned up and I can now respond by saying, have you had a read of the the legislation regarding language and religious freedoms. You know, the ones that start with a notwithstanding clause so as to avoid being struck down by a Charter challenge. How are those laws consistent with your claim that about how inclusive Quebec is?
Sorry about the mess :(
My argument is that there are Quebec nationalists (who call themselves "nationalist") and who are inclusive in the way they view their nationalism. Who think of their nationalism in terms that the label "patriotism" was used earlier in the thread.
At the same time there are also Quebec nationalists (who call themselves "nationalist") who are exclusionary in how they view their nationalism.
That you've identified what you consider exclusionary bad nationalists does not really undermine the point that nationalism takes different forms for different people, and that the "patriot vs nationalist" dichotomy is not necessarily widely shared.
If you're looking for a rousing argument where you can lay out your opinions on Quebec, you'll have to find someone else to have it with as I'm not interested.
I am identifying an objective fact. The laws on their books. And those laws defy the generous characterization you are giving to Quebec nationalists.
:hmm:
Is everyone affected by the laws of Quebec also a Quebec nationalist? Even if that law, by your arguments, excludes them?
I'm not sure what your point is. Everyone in Quebec is certainly affected by the laws of the government of Quebec. Jacob claimed that Quebec nationalists are welcoming of everyone of every Creed. The law prohibiting the display of religious symbols is completely inconsistent with that claim.
Quebec nationalism isn't unified under one party or one banner, especially not the banner of the CAQ.
Quebec Solidaire, a nationalist party, is vehemently against the law prohibiting the display of religious symbols and they would argue for themselves that they are a inclusive nationalist party.
The definition of nationalism is necessarily general, and there will always be outliers. My point is that Jacob attributing inclusivity to all Quebec nationalists was wrong.
The majority of Quebec nationalists have supported laws that are very much exclusive to the beliefs of what makes up the national identity of Quebec.
I think it's dangerous to make an argument that there are good nationalist and bad nationalist.
Nationalism by definition necessitates identifying the other, and excluding them from the nation.
IDF keeps killing international Aid workers. This time 3 Brit's died, so people care.
Accidentally. That happens in wars.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 03, 2024, 01:39:54 PMAccidentally. That happens in wars.
Would you be saying that if the Palestinians kept killing aid workers?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 03, 2024, 01:39:54 PMAccidentally. That happens in wars.
Going on 200 aid workers since October. There's a fine line between accident and careless there. Without getting into the conspiracy theory stuff.
Aid should not be given to a belligerent party.
Quote from: HVC on April 03, 2024, 04:31:26 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 03, 2024, 01:39:54 PMAccidentally. That happens in wars.
Going on 200 aid workers since October. There's a fine line between accident and careless there. Without getting into the conspiracy theory stuff.
Most of them UNRWA...
Quote from: Razgovory on April 03, 2024, 05:28:33 PMQuote from: HVC on April 03, 2024, 04:31:26 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 03, 2024, 01:39:54 PMAccidentally. That happens in wars.
Going on 200 aid workers since October. There's a fine line between accident and careless there. Without getting into the conspiracy theory stuff.
Most of them UNRWA...
Let people eat (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/03/opinion/jose-andres-let-people-eat.html?ugrp=m&unlocked_article_code=1.hk0.uElD.i_ntaXb6L-mI&smid=url-share)
QuoteWe welcome the government's promise of an investigation into how and why members of our World Central Kitchen family were killed. That investigation needs to start at the top, not just the bottom.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said of the Israeli killings of our team, "It happens in war." It was a direct attack on clearly marked vehicles whose movements were known by the Israel Defense Forces.
It was also the direct result of a policy that squeezed humanitarian aid to desperate levels. Our team was en route from a delivery of almost 400 tons of aid by sea — our second shipment, funded by the United Arab Emirates, supported by Cyprus and with clearance from the Israel Defense Forces.
The team members put their lives at risk precisely because this food aid is so rare and desperately needed. According to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification global initiative, half the population of Gaza — 1.1. million people — faces the imminent risk of famine. The team would not have made the journey if there were enough food, traveling by truck across land, to feed the people of Gaza.
Israel uses AI prone to error to determime its low level targets (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/israel-gaza-ai-database-hamas-airstrikes)
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2024, 03:41:49 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 03, 2024, 01:39:54 PMAccidentally. That happens in wars.
Would you be saying that if the Palestinians kept killing aid workers?
No, because that would be deliberate.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 04, 2024, 07:00:08 AMQuote from: Valmy on April 03, 2024, 03:41:49 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 03, 2024, 01:39:54 PMAccidentally. That happens in wars.
Would you be saying that if the Palestinians kept killing aid workers?
No, because that would be deliberate.
Absolutely as deliberate as the Israeli "accidents."
I would think that UNRWA has forfeited their status as neutrals by employing far too many terrorists.
Hamas killing aid workers should be condemned (perhaps even more if it's UNRWA since that's an ally to them) the same as Israel killing aid workers. It's bad form whoever does it.
It's also sloppy and incompetent, or perhaps even malicious, and I expect better from a western army.
IF the stars align, these cowardly bastards, who hide behind ridiculous excuses to avoid military service even though they'd be the first to be pogromed if the IDF failed to defend them, will be conscripted AND Netanhau ousted:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/04/israel-ultra-orthodox-jews-haredim-benjamin-netanyahu-court-military-conscription-gaza-war
Why would they be first? Do they live closest to the borders?
Quote from: Tamas on April 04, 2024, 10:13:33 AMIF the stars align, these cowardly bastards, who hide behind ridiculous excuses to avoid military service even though they'd be the first to be pogromed if the IDF failed to defend them, will be conscripted AND Netanhau ousted:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/04/israel-ultra-orthodox-jews-haredim-benjamin-netanyahu-court-military-conscription-gaza-war
So the excuse for avoiding the mandatory military service is that studying the Torah requires their full-time attention and energy. But they seem to have sufficient time and energy to be members of a coalition government propping up the current Prime Minister. Hypocrisy?
How Much Is a Dead Jew Worth?[color=var(--gray-darker)]
A new book shows that a 'reformed' and 'revitalized' Palestinian Authority would still teach and pay for the murder of Jews
[/color]
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/how-much-is-dead-jew-worth?fbclid=IwAR1AakU_W3wBTl_FbI5_D3IU13Ar9iEDqUKfyPycLr5CHfuECgZvuemp0us
QuoteLital Shemesh, a TV news anchor on Israel's Channel 14, knows terror almost first hand. Last August, her life was suddenly transformed. "I was at home when messages about two murder victims began circulating on the WhatsApp groups of media people," Shemesh recounts in her new book (in Hebrew). "Shockingly, the Palestinians on the ground snapped photos of the ID cards of the victims, and those pictures were also widely circulated. That is how, on the sofa in my living room, I suddenly saw the beloved faces of my uncle, Silas, and his son Aviad. A terrorist arrived at the workshop where they were having their car repaired, shot them at close range and murdered them." The next day, Shemesh continues, another terrorist murdered her kindergarten teacher.
The title of the book poses the question: How Much Is a Dead Jew Worth? It is not only a political, but also an accounting question, with an approximate numerical answer: The Palestinian Authority compensates the families of terrorists on a monthly basis, in proportion to the amount of harm they inflict on Jews. As Shemesh explains, the sum is calculated by the intermediary variable—the length of their prison sentence.
The salaries are paid so long as the perpetrator is held in jail, and stop when they're freed, which is why one terrorist released in last November's round of hostage exchanges with Hamas asked to remain in jail. (Israel refused.) Those who are killed while committing terror attacks gain "shahid" (martyr) status and their families receive stipends for life.
This commitment to terrorists' families conveys a clear message: Killing Jews is not just a religious calling that can grant you the status of "shahid" and guarantee you a place in heaven with 72 virgins; it is not only an ideological and political mission in the war to ethnically cleanse the land of Israel from Jewish presence. It is also a way to make a living, and the basis of the PA's welfare state.
The official minimum wage in the PA is 1,450 shekels (NIS), almost $400, per month. The average wage is 2,987 NIS ($800). As Shemesh lays out, you can get the minimum wage for lesser crimes that could also land you up to three years in prison. But if you're looking for a more comfortable life for your family, you have to do more harm to Jews. If you get 10 years, you make four times the minimum wage, and twice the average wage. If you get upwards of 30 years, it doubles to eight times the minimum and four times the average wage. While Israelis dream of higher salaries in the high-tech sector, Shemesh comments sarcastically, the Palestinians aspire to higher wages in the terrorism sector.
Pay-for-slay is a huge financial burden on the PA, which spends 7% of its budget on the scheme. Nevertheless, according to the PA's own testimony, these payments are also the most important item in the budget, and any attempt by foreign countries and organizations to condition aid on the discontinuation of pay-for-slay, would be futile. As PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas put it in 2018:
By Allah, even if we have only a penny left it will only be spent on the families of the Martyrs and the prisoners, and only afterwards will it be spent on the rest of the people. This is a group that we appreciate and respect, and we consider it the one paving the way to Palestine's independence for the future generations. ... We view the Martyrs and prisoners as stars in the sky of the Palestinian people ...
The pay-for-slay program, as Shemesh documents, is just one thread in the whole fabric of Palestinian national culture that has woven the idea of jihad against the Jews into all aspects of life. Terrorists dominate the gallery of national heroes to the exclusion of all others. Streets, squares, schools, institutions, and even sporting events are named after them. They are a ubiquitous presence, and, in truth, they are essentially the only role model for Palestinian youth.
Schools are a critical part of the socialization of Palestinian children into this culture. Not only do Palestinian school books contain direct incitement in the form of explicit murderous antisemitic ideology, but also every subject, including grammar and math, drills the same message into children's brains. Take the following exam questions that Shemesh cites (p. 20):
"Hamas shoots a rocket which weighs 50 kilos in the direction of occupied Tel Rabia [Tel Aviv], which is 90.25 kilometers away. What speed does it need to fly, what would be the maximum height, and how long will it take it get there?"
Or:
"Two people are carrying on their shoulders a coffin weighing 200 Newton in the funeral of a martyr weighing 800 Newton." The students are asked to calculate the strength the two men would need.
In a grammar exercise, students are asked to apply Arabic diacritics to this sentence: "Don't think of the occupier as human." (p. 26)
In other words, the cult of death reigns everywhere you turn. Regardless of how much well-meaning Israelis tried desperately to imagine otherwise over the years, the Palestinian national ethos is built around a genocidal war to ethnically cleanse Palestine, from the river to the sea, of Jewish presence.
Our security establishment, Shemesh concludes, clings to the argument that the PA is at least better than any alternative, and so we do not hold it fully accountable. We've become accustomed to the PA's encouragement of terrorism and learned to just bite our lips.
After Oct. 7, this is no longer a viable position. I recently interviewed Itamar Marcus, founder of Palestinian Media Watch, the NGO that has exposed the pay-for-slay program. He said Oct. 7 was not the result of Hamas indoctrination, but the product of PA indoctrination. For one, Hamas hasn't been at it for very long. Its rule in Gaza is only 17 years old. The PA on the other hand has been around for three decades, and to this day, both in Gaza and the West Bank, Palestinian children are still being instructed in books produced by the PA. These PA-produced and regulated books ceaselessly pump into young minds the poison of the same death cult—of suicide and genocide—that animates the pay-for-slay program. These books planted the ideological seeds, Marcus said, which bore the poisoned fruits that Hamas reaped on Oct. 7. They provided the breeding ground that produced the hate that fuels support for Hamas.
NOTE after this are a bunch of charts
Shemesh also cites sources, such as Lt. Col. (res.) Maurice Hirsch of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, who concur that PA indoctrination is a greater source than Hamas of this genocidal hate. The idea that the way forward in Gaza is for Hamas to be replaced by the supposedly moderate Palestinian Authority—which would somehow be "revitalized," and then sign a peace deal with Israel—is therefore a risible exercise in wishful thinking.
The Oslo process, and the so-called two-state solution which it was supposed to produce, was always premised on the idea that Israel would arm a Palestinian police force under the PA, and then outsource Israel's security to it. The test of its success was supposed to be the suppression of terrorism. The result was simply more terrorism.
Regardless of this bloody track record, the White House and the State Department, along with pro-Democratic Party Israeli think tanks, former IDF generals nurtured on a woke ideological diet in American universities, and the Israeli press, are careful to maintain a conceptual barrier between Hamas as a terror organization, and the PA. The latter, they maintain, is a crucial partner in the fight against terrorism—the same PA that, in reality, glorifies and incentivizes terrorism.
By now, moreover, we know that PA security forces personnel are directly involved in terror attacks. In fact, even as the press in Israel and in the West tries to ignore it, PA officials brag about their complicity in terrorism in Arabic to their own people. They cannot stand to lose their competition with Hamas in the national Jew-killing contest.
A Palestinian Media Watch report published in February, titled "Terrorists in Uniform," quoted a PA spokesperson bragging that "roughly 63-65% of the number of Martyrs in the West Bank ... are members of the Fatah Movement. And most of them are members of the [PA] Security Forces or their sons." The police forces Israel armed and the U.S. military trains are active participants in the terror they were supposed to stop. Using the guns we gave them to stop terror, they instead kill Jews—in the process securing the livelihoods of their families.
According to another report released by the Israeli NGO Regavim Movement titled "Officers by Day Terrorists by Night," a spokesman for the PA security apparatus says there are more than 300 security servicemen in Israeli prisons, and that in the last three decades 2,000 additional members of these forces fell as "martyrs" in the struggle against Israel—that is, died while committing terrorism. The report itself, which is limited to the period from 2020 through 2024, was able to identify positively, using open sources, only 78 PA security servicemen, 46 of whom died while committing terror attacks and are therefore considered martyrs. The full data is difficult to collect. The IDF refuses to release numbers because it is invested in its traditional pro-PA stance, while the PA likely inflates the numbers. But this in itself should tell us all we need to know: While its defenders in the West bend over backward to describe the PA as a partner against terrorism and a force of peace and moderation, the PA itself showcases and even aggrandizes its own complicity in terrorism, because this is how it expects to secure its legitimacy in the eyes of its own people. And if Palestinian polls are to be believed—that more than 70% of Palestinians in Judea and Samaria support the Oct. 7 massacre—then, by showboating, the PA is acting in accordance to its own interests. Killing Jews has more than a pecuniary reward. It carries with it prestige, legitimacy, popularity, and acclaim.
Less than two weeks after the Oct. 7 attack, the PA's Ministry of Endowments and Religious Affairs included an infamous Hadith—a saying attributed in the tradition to the messenger of Islam—in its official guidelines that provided imams with talking points to use in their Oct. 20 Friday sermon in Palestinian mosques. The Hadith says that judgment day will only come after the believers have exterminated the Jews. On that day, it says, even rocks and trees will help in the cause of jihad. They will say, "Oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew hiding behind me; come and kill him."
This horrific image, nature itself partaking in ridding the world of the unnatural Jewish scourge, is even more jarring against the backdrop of the Oct. 7 attack on the Nova nature festival, where partygoers attempted to hide behind rocks and bushes in the Negev desert to escape the slaughter.
The PA, the U.S. partner that Washington wants to put in charge of Gaza, has since added the families of the "martyrs," the terrorists who were killed while committing the horrors of that terrible Shabbat morning, to the list of pay-for-slay beneficiaries.
That's it. I'm voting for Trump
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2024, 10:51:09 AMQuote from: Tamas on April 04, 2024, 10:13:33 AMIF the stars align, these cowardly bastards, who hide behind ridiculous excuses to avoid military service even though they'd be the first to be pogromed if the IDF failed to defend them, will be conscripted AND Netanhau ousted:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/04/israel-ultra-orthodox-jews-haredim-benjamin-netanyahu-court-military-conscription-gaza-war
So the excuse for avoiding the mandatory military service is that studying the Torah requires their full-time attention and energy. But they seem to have sufficient time and energy to be members of a coalition government propping up the current Prime Minister. Hypocrisy?
It is such a ridiculously lame excuse.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2024, 12:17:02 PMA new book shows that a 'reformed' and 'revitalized' Palestinian Authority would still teach and pay for the murder of Jews
Well that's the problem isn't it? The Palestinians deserve justice but they can't be trusted. It is a dilemma.
However in a two state solution at least we would have a state to hold accountability...theoretically.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 04, 2024, 10:51:09 AMQuote from: Tamas on April 04, 2024, 10:13:33 AMIF the stars align, these cowardly bastards, who hide behind ridiculous excuses to avoid military service even though they'd be the first to be pogromed if the IDF failed to defend them, will be conscripted AND Netanhau ousted:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/04/israel-ultra-orthodox-jews-haredim-benjamin-netanyahu-court-military-conscription-gaza-war
So the excuse for avoiding the mandatory military service is that studying the Torah requires their full-time attention and energy. But they seem to have sufficient time and energy to be members of a coalition government propping up the current Prime Minister. Hypocrisy?
See this is why Torah study should be left to a small priestly class.
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2024, 02:29:56 PMQuote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2024, 12:17:02 PMA new book shows that a 'reformed' and 'revitalized' Palestinian Authority would still teach and pay for the murder of Jews
Well that's the problem isn't it? The Palestinians deserve justice but they can't be trusted. It is a dilemma.
However in a two state solution at least we would have a state to hold accountability...theoretically.
Justice to me would be the Arab world and possibly the U.S. do a Marshall Fund type program to help them start new lives in Jordan, Lebanon, and Egypt.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 04, 2024, 02:42:45 PMQuote from: Valmy on April 04, 2024, 02:29:56 PMQuote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2024, 12:17:02 PMA new book shows that a 'reformed' and 'revitalized' Palestinian Authority would still teach and pay for the murder of Jews
Well that's the problem isn't it? The Palestinians deserve justice but they can't be trusted. It is a dilemma.
However in a two state solution at least we would have a state to hold accountability...theoretically.
Justice to me would be the Arab world and possibly the U.S. do a Marshall Fund type program to help them start new lives in Jordan, Lebanon, and Egypt.
And send the Jews to Madagascar?
Quote from: Threviel on April 04, 2024, 09:42:18 AMI would think that UNRWA has forfeited their status as neutrals by employing far too many terrorists.
How many is that?
Israel has declared that killing 100 innocents for one high value Hamas target was acceptable.
15 innocent for low value Hamas targets was acceptable.
Does that mean Israeli civilians have forfeited their status as neutrals too, because of their government actions in deliberately targeting civilians?
That's not what deliberately means.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2024, 05:19:32 PMThat's not what deliberately means.
Depends on how you judge the targeting, doesn't it? Deliberately targeting 100 in the hopes of killing 1 vs targeting 1 and indecently killing 100. How you view it is shaded by your views of the IDF
Quote from: HVC on April 04, 2024, 05:30:54 PMDepends on how you judge the targeting, doesn't it? Deliberately targeting 100 in the hopes of killing 1 vs targeting 1 and indecently killing 100. How you view it is shaded by your views of the IDF
Well yeah, deliberation is about the state of mind of the perpetrators. If they really want to kill 100 civilians then it's deliberate. But then that conclusion has nothing to do with IDF's statement. A person could have thought prior to the announcement that the IDF was deliberately targeting civilians. But it's ridiculous to use the announcement as proof that the IDF is deliberately targeting civilians.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 04, 2024, 02:42:45 PMQuote from: Valmy on April 04, 2024, 02:29:56 PMQuote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2024, 12:17:02 PMA new book shows that a 'reformed' and 'revitalized' Palestinian Authority would still teach and pay for the murder of Jews
Well that's the problem isn't it? The Palestinians deserve justice but they can't be trusted. It is a dilemma.
However in a two state solution at least we would have a state to hold accountability...theoretically.
Justice to me would be the Arab world and possibly the U.S. do a Marshall Fund type program to help them start new lives in Jordan, Lebanon, and Egypt.
We should definitely do that for both the Syrian and Palestinian "refugees" still in "refugee camps" in Jordan. Those are basically permanent cities and now and should be organized as such.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2024, 05:45:47 PMQuote from: HVC on April 04, 2024, 05:30:54 PMDepends on how you judge the targeting, doesn't it? Deliberately targeting 100 in the hopes of killing 1 vs targeting 1 and indecently killing 100. How you view it is shaded by your views of the IDF
Well yeah, deliberation is about the state of mind of the perpetrators. If they really want to kill 100 civilians then it's deliberate. But then that conclusion has nothing to do with IDF's statement. A person could have thought prior to the announcement that the IDF was deliberately targeting civilians. But it's ridiculous to use the announcement as proof that the IDF is deliberately targeting civilians.
The first time, it might not be deliberate.
The second time neither.
But at some point, it becomes policy.
Indiscriminate bombing is considered a war crime. And I don't buy Israel's bullshit excused that "accident's just happen". Accidents can be prevented if you work toward it. Driving drunk 130km/h in a 30km/h and claiming you hit a child by accident is not a valid defense.
And is the objective here to solely target Hamas or to scare Palestinians away from their territory? Corner them somewhere so they may become more manageable? We've been over that before. The goal has been stated clearly at the beginning of the war by Israel and the US has opposed a firm "no" on it. It didn't get released publicly "by accident". It was leaked on purpose.
Quote from: viper37 on April 04, 2024, 07:43:45 PMThe first time, it might not be deliberate.
The second time neither.
But at some point, it becomes policy.
What is "it?"
I doubt it is deliberate but let me just say they are doing a shitty job of not killing aid workers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2024, 08:18:57 PMQuote from: viper37 on April 04, 2024, 07:43:45 PMThe first time, it might not be deliberate.
The second time neither.
But at some point, it becomes policy.
What is "it?"
Ignoring potential collateral damages when you pick a potential target, not triple checking what you are hitting.
#1 is the equivalent of a police officer opening fire blindly in a crowd to catch a potential suspect fleeing.
#2 is the equivalent of a police officer shooting at a crowd because he thought he saw a suspect fleeing.
There are measures to be put in place to minimize civilian casualties. Israel is deliberately ignoring them because the victims are Palestinians. Would it bomb Tel-Aviv if one high value target was potentially hiding in a crowd of 100 Israelis? Then claiming "Sorry, shit happens" ?
Would the US do it in a war, over, and over, and over, and over again?
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2024, 08:43:38 PMI doubt it is deliberate but let me just say they are doing a shitty job of not killing aid workers.
They thought there was a gunman in the vehicle. They did not bother confirming it. They hit the targets. Because they were aid workers and they thought there was a gunman. Everyone is expendable as long as they are not Israelis. Even then, I do wonder sometimes if some Israelis are more expendables than others.
But to the case at hand, they would have done the same if it had been 3 trucks filled with Palestinian civilians, but they would have said there were terrorists onboard and gone away with it. It's been the IDF mo for years under this government.
This time, it didn't work.
3 trucks filled with civilians, they knew they were civilians, but they thought there was one gunman with them, and that was enough to order a strike.
That's the orders they got from the top.
It's not a mishap, it's a policy: Think you see one shady dude? Drone strike. We'll sort it later. 20 seconds to analyse what an AI has determined is a target is not enough for human verification.
It is pretty obvious Israel hasn't been deliberately targeting civilians.
Quote from: viper37 on April 04, 2024, 09:28:17 PMIgnoring potential collateral damages when you pick a potential target, not triple checking what you are hitting.
#1 is the equivalent of a police officer opening fire blindly in a crowd to catch a potential suspect fleeing.
#2 is the equivalent of a police officer shooting at a crowd because he thought he saw a suspect fleeing.
There are measures to be put in place to minimize civilian casualties. Israel is deliberately ignoring them because the victims are Palestinians. Would it bomb Tel-Aviv if one high value target was potentially hiding in a crowd of 100 Israelis? Then claiming "Sorry, shit happens" ?
Would the US do it in a war, over, and over, and over, and over again?
You are not required to "triple check" in international law. Yes, the Israelis value their own civilians more than that of the enemy. Everyone does that. This isn't policing. And yes, the US would do that over and over and over again. We've done that over and over and over.
Israel military suspends senior officers involved in aid worker convoy strike (https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-middle-east-68738452?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=660fc593683d4b45f9380f3d%26Israel%20military%20suspends%20senior%20officers%20involved%20in%20aid%20worker%20convoy%20strike%262024-04-05T10%3A35%3A39.144Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:63e9cc9d-2659-4136-8b2c-717f149c0195&pinned_post_asset_id=660fc593683d4b45f9380f3d&pinned_post_type=share)
Apparently IDF investigates and presumably prosecutes its perceived war crimes, looking forward to Hamas doing the same.
The IDF doesn't do BDA outside of senior targets. This is a serious issue. WTF is going on over there.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GKSbtKtWwAEyQoo?format=png&name=medium)
Article here is pretty damning:
'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing spree in Gaza (https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/)
Yep.
Israel thinks nothing of Palestinian civilian deaths. The only reason this one is a scandal is they killed citizens of friendly countries. They do the same thing basically every day.
And their only defence is "But what about Hamas".
Israel is giving as much deference to civilian casualties as any country does fighting a major war. It gives more consideration than countries like Russia.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 05, 2024, 08:04:51 AMIsrael is giving as much deference to civilian casualties as any country does fighting a major war. It gives more consideration than countries like Russia.
That is objectively false. Despite employing far greater firepower in Ukraine, Russia has killed just less than 11,000 civilians in 25 months. Israel has killed over 30,000 in six months.
Those numbers are fake news. And I think you know that.
1. We are uncritically repeating Hamas numbers, which we also know include Hamas fighters (e.g. non-civilians), estimates I have seen are civilian casualties exclusive of Hamas fighters is around the 18k or so range.
2. The civilian casualties in the Ukraine war are solely civilians killed in Ukrainian territory, that Ukraine has recovered and reported. Russia does not report on civilian casualties. Several large Ukrainian cities that were essentially levelled by artillery in prolonged sieges, and which still are under Russian control, for example, we have no meaningful casualty data from. Basically everyone knows those incidents caused many thousands of civilians deaths.
Think critically and don't post fake shit.
Quote from: grumbler on April 05, 2024, 08:27:37 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 05, 2024, 08:04:51 AMIsrael is giving as much deference to civilian casualties as any country does fighting a major war. It gives more consideration than countries like Russia.
That is objectively false. Despite employing far greater firepower in Ukraine, Russia has killed just less than 11,000 civilians in 25 months. Israel has killed over 30,000 in six months.
Whilst you are correct about the confirmed number of civilian deaths in Ukraine the Ukrainian government claims that 25.000 died in Mariupol alone, numbers which are orders of magnitudes more credible than anything from the PA.
In a way I think the number of civilian casualties is mostly irrelevant. Either Israel has a right/valid reason to seek a decisive military victory over its enemies controlling Gaza, in which case I fail to see how they'd have more responsibility for Gazan lives than Israeli ones i.e. the losses are irrelevant, OR they are not justified to seek a complete military victory over (people controlling) Gaza, in which case pretty much any civilian casualty there is unacceptable.
Quote from: Threviel on April 05, 2024, 08:59:21 AMQuote from: grumbler on April 05, 2024, 08:27:37 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 05, 2024, 08:04:51 AMIsrael is giving as much deference to civilian casualties as any country does fighting a major war. It gives more consideration than countries like Russia.
That is objectively false. Despite employing far greater firepower in Ukraine, Russia has killed just less than 11,000 civilians in 25 months. Israel has killed over 30,000 in six months.
Whilst you are correct about the confirmed number of civilian deaths in Ukraine the Ukrainian government claims that 25.000 died in Mariupol alone, numbers which are orders of magnitudes more credible than anything from the PA.
The Palestinian numbers are regarded as being pretty good all things considered.
https://www.vox.com/world-politics/23940215/israel-palestine-gaza-hamas-death-toll-war-fatalities-verified-count-conflict
Though getting hung up on this does sort of miss the point. Has Israel killed 5000 or 4000 children?.... does it matter? Its clear the numbers have crossed the threshold of being considered fucked up.
Quote from: Tamas on April 05, 2024, 09:45:53 AMIn a way I think the number of civilian casualties is mostly irrelevant. Either Israel has a right/valid reason to seek a decisive military victory over its enemies controlling Gaza, in which case I fail to see how they'd have more responsibility for Gazan lives than Israeli ones i.e. the losses are irrelevant, OR they are not justified to seek a complete military victory over (people controlling) Gaza, in which case pretty much any civilian casualty there is unacceptable.
Quote from: Tamas on April 05, 2024, 09:45:53 AMIn a way I think the number of civilian casualties is mostly irrelevant. Either Israel has a right/valid reason to seek a decisive military victory over its enemies controlling Gaza, in which case I fail to see how they'd have more responsibility for Gazan lives than Israeli ones i.e. the losses are irrelevant, OR they are not justified to seek a complete military victory over (people controlling) Gaza, in which case pretty much any civilian casualty there is unacceptable.
You are ignoring the fact that Israel has itself designated certain areas as safe for civilians and aid, but they attack there anyway.
Mistakes happen, but the finding quoted a few posts ago that the Israelis simply don't care if they are killing civilians is objectively monstrous, if that quote is accurate.
Quote from: Josquius on April 05, 2024, 09:58:29 AMThe Palestinian numbers are regarded as being pretty good all things considered.
https://www.vox.com/world-politics/23940215/israel-palestine-gaza-hamas-death-toll-war-fatalities-verified-count-conflict
Though getting hung up on this does sort of miss the point. Has Israel killed 5000 or 4000 children?.... does it matter? Its clear the numbers have crossed the threshold of being considered fucked up.
What is the threshold of being considered fucked up and what is the rememdy?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2024, 10:43:44 AMQuote from: Josquius on April 05, 2024, 09:58:29 AMThe Palestinian numbers are regarded as being pretty good all things considered.
https://www.vox.com/world-politics/23940215/israel-palestine-gaza-hamas-death-toll-war-fatalities-verified-count-conflict
Though getting hung up on this does sort of miss the point. Has Israel killed 5000 or 4000 children?.... does it matter? Its clear the numbers have crossed the threshold of being considered fucked up.
What is the threshold of being considered fucked up and what is the rememdy?
If I say 1000 and only 999 kids got killed in a bombing campaign then that makes everything totally fine?
The actual numbers of deaths are clearly well beyond what would be considered reasonable. Asking for a simple definition of what is reasonable again misses the point and is clearly not asked in good faith.
The "how many children" thing just isn't relevant to me. If a war is justified and you aren't violating the laws of war, incidental children deaths are tragedies but shouldn't determine a political or diplomatic response to the war.
I don't know how many children the Allies killed to win WWII, but I know it was orders of magnitude more than 1000 or 5000. I don't know very many people that credibly argue the Allies were wrong to fight the war to the point of complete defeat of the Axis powers.
:huh: How do we know what is clearly beyond what would be considered reasonable if we don't what is reasonable? You were the one who brought up thresholds. I have no idea what number of dead kid you would consider totally fine. Nor do I know what you think we should do about it.
Quote from: Threviel on April 05, 2024, 05:47:43 AMIsrael military suspends senior officers involved in aid worker convoy strike (https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-middle-east-68738452?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=660fc593683d4b45f9380f3d%26Israel%20military%20suspends%20senior%20officers%20involved%20in%20aid%20worker%20convoy%20strike%262024-04-05T10%3A35%3A39.144Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:63e9cc9d-2659-4136-8b2c-717f149c0195&pinned_post_asset_id=660fc593683d4b45f9380f3d&pinned_post_type=share)
Apparently IDF investigates and presumably prosecutes its perceived war crimes, looking forward to Hamas doing the same.
What about the 190 odd humanitarian aid worker deaths. Not worthy of investigation and/or punishment. Only the incident that garnered international condemnation ? How convenient :D
Quote from: HVC on April 05, 2024, 11:56:34 AMQuote from: Threviel on April 05, 2024, 05:47:43 AMIsrael military suspends senior officers involved in aid worker convoy strike (https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-middle-east-68738452?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=660fc593683d4b45f9380f3d%26Israel%20military%20suspends%20senior%20officers%20involved%20in%20aid%20worker%20convoy%20strike%262024-04-05T10%3A35%3A39.144Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:63e9cc9d-2659-4136-8b2c-717f149c0195&pinned_post_asset_id=660fc593683d4b45f9380f3d&pinned_post_type=share)
Apparently IDF investigates and presumably prosecutes its perceived war crimes, looking forward to Hamas doing the same.
What about the 190 odd humanitarian aid worker deaths. Not worthy of investigation and/or punishment. Only the incident that garnered international condemnation ? How convenient :D
I don't know why Threviel is comparing a liberal democratic country to a terrorist organization. I am not sure he thought that comparison through.
If Hamas is simply a terrorist organization than the authorities of Gaza should have no problem handing them over to Israeli authorities.
Quote from: Tamas on April 05, 2024, 09:45:53 AMIn a way I think the number of civilian casualties is mostly irrelevant. Either Israel has a right/valid reason to seek a decisive military victory over its enemies controlling Gaza, in which case I fail to see how they'd have more responsibility for Gazan lives than Israeli ones i.e. the losses are irrelevant, OR they are not justified to seek a complete military victory over (people controlling) Gaza, in which case pretty much any civilian casualty there is unacceptable.
Because it's not an either/or proposition. Israel could be justified in obtaining miliary victory over Hamas and yet it does not follow that anything they do that has some connection to that military effort is justified. I.e. Israel would not be justified denotating its entire nuclear arsenal in Gaza center and killing everyone and everything in the enclave, even though that would clearly and effectively accomplish the military objective.
The principle is recognized in international law as one of proportionality and reasonableness in relation to military necessity. And so the total number of civilian dead is pertinent because it bears on that analysis.
Quote from: Tamas on April 05, 2024, 09:45:53 AMIn a way I think the number of civilian casualties is mostly irrelevant. Either Israel has a right/valid reason to seek a decisive military victory over its enemies controlling Gaza, in which case I fail to see how they'd have more responsibility for Gazan lives than Israeli ones i.e. the losses are irrelevant, OR they are not justified to seek a complete military victory over (people controlling) Gaza, in which case pretty much any civilian casualty there is unacceptable.
Civilian casualties are not irrelevant, and the choice isn't between allowing Israel to kill as many civilians as it likes by justifying the deaths as part of an effort to "seek a decisive military victory over its enemies" or not justifying civilian deaths at all. All such reductionist arguments on complex issues are essentially trying to dodge the truth: that what is and is not "moral" is a matter of interpretation.
I would argue two things in an attempt to clarify my stance on this:
1. Israel cannot decisively defeat Hamas using blunt-force tactics. For every father, mother, brother, sister, daughter and son that dies, Hamas get a recruit.
2. Israel's right to self-defense is not an absolute; they have no mandate in international law or common decency to defeat Hamas no matter the cost.
"Absolute victory" over an idea is not a possibility, and Israel would do better if it more carefully considered how much of its moral and diplomatic capital it is willing to erase pursuing the impossible. Benjamin Netanyahu is not the man they want making that decision, since his concern is to stay out of prison, with the war on Hamas being just a means to that end.
It's also not WW2. The technology has involved to allow more precise targeting although admittedly without eliminating all civilian casualties. And there are things the US did in WW2 - like the firebombing of Dresden - that are hard to justify from our present standpoint.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2024, 11:23:17 AM:huh: How do we know what is clearly beyond what would be considered reasonable if we don't what is reasonable? You were the one who brought up thresholds. I have no idea what number of dead kid you would consider totally fine. Nor do I know what you think we should do about it.
Because that's the way the world works outside of the head of the loony right.
It isn't based on simple absolute A+B=C rules. It's complicated. It's messy.
There's a reason why when countries actually write their rules down they tend to cover far more pages than the simple black and white view would have it and have a whole heap of guidance about sentencing based on surrounding factors.
Different people and groups have different views on what an "acceptable" number of civilian casualties for Israel to inflict was (even there we aren't talking about simple numbers you can pin on a board, there's a tonne of other factors around it) but where they've got to now is so far beyond the pale even US support isnt as bluntly unconditional as it once was.
If you don't have a bit of an issue with some of the shit Israel has got up to lately, you don't question just a little the braindead endless campaign against civilian areas with no end in sight, then you're solidly aligned with Hamas and Co as far as being a decent human being goes.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2024, 12:26:37 PMIf Hamas is simply a terrorist organization than the authorities of Gaza should have no problem handing them over to Israeli authorities.
Well they are the governing entity in Gaza, so probably would be against handing themselves over.
:huh: If I don't have a problem with Israel then I'm aligned with Hamas? What makes you say this kind of stuff? :huh: Josquius, whenever I press you for details on something like this you weasel out of it. Oh it's complicated, it can't be quantified! Numbers are far-right! No, what you are talking about is a feeling. It feels like Israel has gone too far. Here is way to present the information that makes you feel better. A Middle Eastern state kills 30,000 far-right individuals. Now, doesn't that feel better?
Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2024, 02:28:17 PMQuote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2024, 12:26:37 PMIf Hamas is simply a terrorist organization than the authorities of Gaza should have no problem handing them over to Israeli authorities.
Well they are the governing entity in Gaza, so probably would be against handing themselves over.
Oh, no. Hamas is just a terrorist group. They are like a prison gang. They don't actually run anything.
Quote from: viper37 on April 04, 2024, 09:28:17 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2024, 08:18:57 PMQuote from: viper37 on April 04, 2024, 07:43:45 PMThe first time, it might not be deliberate.
The second time neither.
But at some point, it becomes policy.
What is "it?"
Ignoring potential collateral damages when you pick a potential target, not triple checking what you are hitting.
#1 is the equivalent of a police officer opening fire blindly in a crowd to catch a potential suspect fleeing.
#2 is the equivalent of a police officer shooting at a crowd because he thought he saw a suspect fleeing.
There are measures to be put in place to minimize civilian casualties. Israel is deliberately ignoring them because the victims are Palestinians. Would it bomb Tel-Aviv if one high value target was potentially hiding in a crowd of 100 Israelis? Then claiming "Sorry, shit happens" ?
Would the US do it in a war, over, and over, and over, and over again?
How can it not be deliberate the first time you ignore collateral damage?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2024, 12:26:37 PMIf Hamas is simply a terrorist organization than the authorities of Gaza should have no problem handing them over to Israeli authorities.
What authorities are you talking about? And are you really contesting the claim that Hamas is a terrorist organization?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 05, 2024, 04:40:30 PMQuote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2024, 12:26:37 PMIf Hamas is simply a terrorist organization than the authorities of Gaza should have no problem handing them over to Israeli authorities.
What authorities are you talking about? And are you really contesting the claim that Hamas is a terrorist organization?
Of course not. If they are just a terrorist organization than what ever authorities they have in Gaza should be able to hand them over. If they are just a prison gang then the Palestinians should be happy to hand over these miscreants to the proper authorities.
You guys are describing the need for Israel to put artificial limits on utilising their military power. If their war is justified (as in, they need to destroy the source of mortal danger to their citizens from Gaza) and they do limit themselves in pursuing the successful conclusion of the war, they prioritise civilians of the opposing side over their own.
If we argue that no, Israel has no right in this case to prioritise the safety of its own citizens over others' then why are we saying that they are justified to use some military force but not all? If it is not justified to sacrifice, say, 1000 enemy(-controlled) civilians as collateral damage, why is it justified to sacrifice 1?
Quote from: Josquius on April 05, 2024, 01:59:51 PMDifferent people and groups have different views on what an "acceptable" number of civilian casualties for Israel to inflict was (even there we aren't talking about simple numbers you can pin on a board, there's a tonne of other factors around it) but where they've got to now is so far beyond the pale even US support isnt as bluntly unconditional as it once was.
If you don't have a bit of an issue with some of the shit Israel has got up to lately, you don't question just a little the braindead endless campaign against civilian areas with no end in sight, then you're solidly aligned with Hamas and Co as far as being a decent human being goes.
Different people have different views on acceptable civilian casualties but yours is the right one.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2024, 04:28:13 PMQuote from: viper37 on April 04, 2024, 09:28:17 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2024, 08:18:57 PMQuote from: viper37 on April 04, 2024, 07:43:45 PMThe first time, it might not be deliberate.
The second time neither.
But at some point, it becomes policy.
What is "it?"
Ignoring potential collateral damages when you pick a potential target, not triple checking what you are hitting.
#1 is the equivalent of a police officer opening fire blindly in a crowd to catch a potential suspect fleeing.
#2 is the equivalent of a police officer shooting at a crowd because he thought he saw a suspect fleeing.
There are measures to be put in place to minimize civilian casualties. Israel is deliberately ignoring them because the victims are Palestinians. Would it bomb Tel-Aviv if one high value target was potentially hiding in a crowd of 100 Israelis? Then claiming "Sorry, shit happens" ?
Would the US do it in a war, over, and over, and over, and over again?
How can it not be deliberate the first time you ignore collateral damage?
If you keep ignoring the consequences, how can it not be a deliberate policy to kill civilians as a way to inflict maximum terror when you kill your presumed targets?
We've had this discussion before when Israel was claiming it killed Hamas targets but was unable to say whom it killed. They strike at civilians gathered in an open place saying they killed a "Hamas leader" but were unable to name him or say what he did specifically and how dangerous he was.
This time, it was aid workers. Like Raz said, usually, "it's only UNRWA", so they already forfeited their lives in his eyes, because they are from the UN.
There's generalized outraged because there was no mistake possible for a human eye. A careful analysis by a human would have revealed it was an aid vehicle that had already declared its presence in the area and that there was no gunman.
But that does not conform with Israel's official policy: strike first, deal with any fallout later.
Since there are never any consequences, they will keep doing it over and over and over again.
And some people will keep saying it was an accident.
Imagine if there were no consequences for high speeding and drunk driving in a residential zone. Then you hit a child. Police and ambulance come. Then the driver leaves the scene, no consequences, whatsoever.
Does the driver stop drinking and speeding in residential zone? Will he respect the 50km/h rule or will he keep driving at near 3x the speed limit while drinking vodka?
If there are no consequences for Israel's actions, why would they change their policies of targeting civilians when they suspect there's a "Hamas" militant in the area?
Is the goal really to simply eliminate Hamas when they authorize kill ratio varies from 15/100 civilians to 1
possible legitimate target?
If a police officer shoots in a crowd to attain a suspect, is it a an accident when a bullet hits a passerby?
Quote from: viper37 on April 05, 2024, 05:54:26 PMIf you keep ignoring the consequences, how can it not be a deliberate policy to kill civilians as a way to inflict maximum terror when you kill your presumed targets?
If you keep ignoring the consequences it is either a deliberate policy to kill civilians or it shows you are totally indifferent.
But the "keep" doesn't prove the "ignore." If you ignore the consequences a single time it proves the exact same thing.
But if they're doing something other than ignoring the consequences then the fifth or tenth or millionth time they do something other than ignore the consequences doesn't prove they are ignoring the consequences.
Quote from: grumbler on April 05, 2024, 08:27:37 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 05, 2024, 08:04:51 AMIsrael is giving as much deference to civilian casualties as any country does fighting a major war. It gives more consideration than countries like Russia.
That is objectively false. Despite employing far greater firepower in Ukraine, Russia has killed just less than 11,000 civilians in 25 months. Israel has killed over 30,000 in six months.
Where are those numbers from? Russia has killed more in Mariupol alone.
Quote from: Tamas on April 05, 2024, 05:05:57 PMYou guys are describing the need for Israel to put artificial limits on utilising their military power.
Every belligerent puts limits on the use of their military power; even the Nazis didn't indiscriminately slaughter everyone in sight everywhere they went. Attaching the derogatory adjective "artificial" in this context begs the question. Modern war is not a natural activity, everything about it is artificial.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/professors-claim-pointing-out-how-hamas-brutalizes-lgbtq-people-is-homophobic-violence/ar-BB1l9rXR?cvid=5ec43cb673d54ac4ee7d939e6e5c43ed&ocid=winp2fptaskbar&ei=12&sc=shoreline
This is pretty fucked up.
QuoteDescribing Hamas' brutalization of LGBTQ Palestinians needs to be labeled "homophobic violence," university professors suggested at an event last month.
Associate Professor Maya Mikdashi took part in a discussion at the school titled "Palestine is a Feminist and Queer Anti-Imperialist Abolition Struggle" with University of Illinois professor Nadine Naber on March 20. During the event, Mikdashi pushed back on the complaint that Palestinians and Hamas mistreat LGBTQ citizens, claiming that the assertion itself is a form of bigotry.
"So I've been at protests where I'm then told, 'Don't you know what Hamas would do to you, if you were in Palestine.' And we have to start naming this, actually, as homophobic," Mikdashi said, as Naber vocally agreed. "You cannot rehearse violence to queer people and be like, 'don't you know ... A, B, you would be...' in really excruciating detail. I think we have to actually shift it."
"It's violence," an audience member said.
"It's homophobic. It's violent," Mikdashi agreed.
"Homophobic violence," Naber affirmed.
"And we have to move it from thinking only in terms of pinkwashing to actually understanding pinkwashing as a form of homophobia," Mikdashi said.
The Anti-Defamation League describes pinkwashing in this context as "used by anti-Israel activists to characterize positive aspects or characteristics of Israeli society – like the promotion of LGBTQ+ rights ... as a premeditated Israeli strategy to deflect attention from what they argue is Israel's persecution of the Palestinians."
Naber also alleged that the concept was based on a "racist assumption" that Arab culture is "hyper-misogynist" and rooted in "backwards or savage concepts." She later insisted that Israel is guilty of sexual assault based on its colonialist founding.
"ndeed the practices of rape and sexual assault that have been well-documented during the founding of Israel and continued today are not an exception or a secondary impact of colonial violence but are part of the settler colonial White supremacist logics and practices of Israel that conflate colonized women with the land and nature and assume that therefore to dominate the land necessitates dominating Palestinian women's bodies and their reproductive capacities from 1948 until today," Naber said.
She further added that there needs to be more organization of queer and trans people who are dealing with Zionism.
"We're going to need our organizing to center queer and trans people not only because they are especially vulnerable to colonial violence and the racism and the doxxing, but they also embody exceptionally nuanced wisdom about Zionism because they are living it in all its complexity," Naber said.
Fox News Digital reached out to Rutgers University, Mikdashi and Naber for a comment.
Mikdashi and Naber's comments follow months of people mocking and criticizing the concept of "Queers for Palestine" while its proponents ignore the ongoing persecution and execution of LGBTQ people in Palestinian society.
While their comments frequently attacked Israel as guilty of normalizing sexual assaults and rape against Palestinian women, the professors did not acknowledge a February report from the Association of Rape Crisis Centers of Israel (ARCCI) that reiterated that Hamas committed "sadistic practices" and violent rape against several people during the initial Oct. 7 attack.
"From the testimonies and information provided, it emerges that the sexual assaults committed in the Oct. 7 attack and thereafter were carried out systematically and deliberately," the report concluded.
Quote from: Zoupa on April 05, 2024, 10:33:18 PMWhere are those numbers from? Russia has killed more in Mariupol alone.
The numbers are from the Ukrainian government via the UN. There are 11,000 or so they list as missing in Mariupol, and some of them are certainly dead, but even if they are all dead, they still don't match the Israeli numbers.
Quote from: Tamas on April 05, 2024, 05:05:57 PMYou guys are describing the need for Israel to put artificial limits on utilising their military power. If their war is justified (as in, they need to destroy the source of mortal danger to their citizens from Gaza) and they do limit themselves in pursuing the successful conclusion of the war, they prioritise civilians of the opposing side over their own.
If we argue that no, Israel has no right in this case to prioritise the safety of its own citizens over others' then why are we saying that they are justified to use some military force but not all? If it is not justified to sacrifice, say, 1000 enemy(-controlled) civilians as collateral damage, why is it justified to sacrifice 1?
Well, a couple of medium-sized nukes would do the job for sure, if you think that any restraint at all on killing civilians is "artificial."
The principal in international law is that force must be proportionate and that collateral damage and deaths should be avoided as far as possible. Are those limits "artificial?" Sure. But all law is "artificial."
QuoteIf I don't have a problem with Israel then I'm aligned with Hamas?
If you don't have a problem with murder then you've a lot in common with Hamas.
QuoteWhat makes you say this kind of stuff? :huh: Josquius, whenever I press you for details on something like this you weasel out of it.
No weaseling at all. I just don't fit into the politics as sports Israel supporters vs Hamas supporters pattern you'd like to see.
I recognise the world is far more complicated than this simple black and white picture and that a shit tonne of innocents are being killed with no obvious end in sight.
QuoteOh it's complicated, it can't be quantified! Numbers are far-right!
Believing the world works on simple black and white rules is the typical way authoritarian right people view the world.
QuoteNo, what you are talking about is a feeling. It feels like Israel has gone too far. Here is way to present the information that makes you feel better.
You say "feeling", the more scientific terms would be "psychology" and "Political science".
QuoteA Middle Eastern state kills 30,000 far-right individuals. Now, doesn't that feel better?
The typical mindset of toddlers does have a lot in common with the far right. But no. Pointing this out doesn't make me feel any better about them being slaughtered.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2024, 05:06:18 PMQuote from: Josquius on April 05, 2024, 01:59:51 PMDifferent people and groups have different views on what an "acceptable" number of civilian casualties for Israel to inflict was (even there we aren't talking about simple numbers you can pin on a board, there's a tonne of other factors around it) but where they've got to now is so far beyond the pale even US support isnt as bluntly unconditional as it once was.
If you don't have a bit of an issue with some of the shit Israel has got up to lately, you don't question just a little the braindead endless campaign against civilian areas with no end in sight, then you're solidly aligned with Hamas and Co as far as being a decent human being goes.
Different people have different views on acceptable civilian casualties but yours is the right one.
Not close to what I said at all.
Different people will have different ideas but with where Israel is now basically everyone, even their usually wilfully blind allies, agree they've gone too far.
Quote from: Tamas on April 05, 2024, 05:05:57 PMYou guys are describing the need for Israel to put artificial limits on utilising their military power. If their war is justified (as in, they need to destroy the source of mortal danger to their citizens from Gaza) and they do limit themselves in pursuing the successful conclusion of the war, they prioritise civilians of the opposing side over their own.
If we argue that no, Israel has no right in this case to prioritise the safety of its own citizens over others' then why are we saying that they are justified to use some military force but not all? If it is not justified to sacrifice, say, 1000 enemy(-controlled) civilians as collateral damage, why is it justified to sacrifice 1?
It's not us guys. And it's not artificial limits. International law actually does exist. It does actually put limits on what a military can do.
Quote from: grumbler on April 06, 2024, 03:22:39 AMQuote from: Tamas on April 05, 2024, 05:05:57 PMYou guys are describing the need for Israel to put artificial limits on utilising their military power. If their war is justified (as in, they need to destroy the source of mortal danger to their citizens from Gaza) and they do limit themselves in pursuing the successful conclusion of the war, they prioritise civilians of the opposing side over their own.
If we argue that no, Israel has no right in this case to prioritise the safety of its own citizens over others' then why are we saying that they are justified to use some military force but not all? If it is not justified to sacrifice, say, 1000 enemy(-controlled) civilians as collateral damage, why is it justified to sacrifice 1?
Well, a couple of medium-sized nukes would do the job for sure, if you think that any restraint at all on killing civilians is "artificial."
The principal in international law is that force must be proportionate and that collateral damage and deaths should be avoided as far as possible. Are those limits "artificial?" Sure. But all law is "artificial."
It's only artificial if you subscribe to the notion that there is something else that is natural. But the concept of natural law went out of vogue sometime ago.
I guess I thought it was the expectation that armies in a war would avoid civilian casualties. Granted we are in a situation where there isn't really a Palestinian Army to do battle with but still I haven't seen too many discussions of the partisan warfare in WWII Yugoslavia and shrug at the Axis atrocities as "well that is just how war is naturally fought without all those stupid artificial limits."
Quote from: Valmy on April 06, 2024, 09:33:20 AMI guess I thought it was the expectation that armies in a war would avoid civilian casualties. Granted we are in a situation where there isn't really a Palestinian Army to do battle with but still I haven't seen too many discussions of the partisan warfare in WWII Yugoslavia and shrug at the Axis atrocities as "well that is just how war is naturally fought without all those stupid artificial limits."
I think we let Axis soldiers off the hook on Yugoslavia because "that is just how war is naturally fought".
Well we didn't let Axis soldiers off the hook (with exceptions), maybe legally but not morally; but we did let Allied forces off the hook be it Western terror bombing or to a lesser extent the Soviet rape-rampage through Germany and Hungary.
And do you know why (beside that it's the winning side)? Because it's been deemed necessary to win the war for the side that was defending itself/others in what the other side considered an existential/total war. Now, you are allowed to say that Israel is not defending, it is attacking. But in that case, again, what grounds you or Israel have to get the scale out and start measuring "oh ok so Israel lost X lives so they can kill Y Palestinians, but most definitely not Y+1. Why are they allowed to kill anyone if they are not defending themselves?
But if they ARE defending themselves, then it is against an enemy which stated they don't want the state of Israel to exist, ergo for them it is total war, they simply do not (yet) have the means to wage it on a scale that could fit their ambitions, but the ambition is most certainly there, they did showcase that.
So if we are saying that Israel is rightfully defending against an enemy that has total elimination of Israel as its ultimate objective, then why are we denying them the right to employ the same tools that our countries employed when facing enemies who had the same (or, heck, milder) goals against us? Assuming they are employing the same tools because I think the only thing that can be said for certain at this point is that they do not care who is caught in their crossfire, which is is not exactly unusual when you consider a situation a battle in a war as opposed to some counter-insurgency police operation. Heck, my family knew people who got killed precisely like that.
Quote from: grumbler on April 06, 2024, 03:19:16 AMQuote from: Zoupa on April 05, 2024, 10:33:18 PMWhere are those numbers from? Russia has killed more in Mariupol alone.
The numbers are from the Ukrainian government via the UN. There are 11,000 or so they list as missing in Mariupol, and some of them are certainly dead, but even if they are all dead, they still don't match the Israeli numbers.
You're either being obtuse on purpose for a reason I can't fathom or terribly ignorant of russia's was on Ukraine.
Quote from: Josquius on April 06, 2024, 03:40:47 AMQuoteIf I don't have a problem with Israel then I'm aligned with Hamas?
If you don't have a problem with murder then you've a lot in common with Hamas.
QuoteWhat makes you say this kind of stuff? :huh: Josquius, whenever I press you for details on something like this you weasel out of it.
No weaseling at all. I just don't fit into the politics as sports Israel supporters vs Hamas supporters pattern you'd like to see.
I recognise the world is far more complicated than this simple black and white picture and that a shit tonne of innocents are being killed with no obvious end in sight.
QuoteOh it's complicated, it can't be quantified! Numbers are far-right!
Believing the world works on simple black and white rules is the typical way authoritarian right people view the world.
QuoteNo, what you are talking about is a feeling. It feels like Israel has gone too far. Here is way to present the information that makes you feel better.
You say "feeling", the more scientific terms would be "psychology" and "Political science".
QuoteA Middle Eastern state kills 30,000 far-right individuals. Now, doesn't that feel better?
The typical mindset of toddlers does have a lot in common with the far right. But no. Pointing this out doesn't make me feel any better about them being slaughtered.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2024, 05:06:18 PMQuote from: Josquius on April 05, 2024, 01:59:51 PMDifferent people and groups have different views on what an "acceptable" number of civilian casualties for Israel to inflict was (even there we aren't talking about simple numbers you can pin on a board, there's a tonne of other factors around it) but where they've got to now is so far beyond the pale even US support isnt as bluntly unconditional as it once was.
If you don't have a bit of an issue with some of the shit Israel has got up to lately, you don't question just a little the braindead endless campaign against civilian areas with no end in sight, then you're solidly aligned with Hamas and Co as far as being a decent human being goes.
Different people have different views on acceptable civilian casualties but yours is the right one.
Not close to what I said at all.
Different people will have different ideas but with where Israel is now basically everyone, even their usually wilfully blind allies, agree they've gone too far.
(https://i.imgur.com/SR5mM8s.jpeg)
It's the 14 anniversary of the Lettow post!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2024, 06:05:46 PMIf you keep ignoring the consequences it is either a deliberate policy to kill civilians or it shows you are totally indifferent.
It can be both. The two are not mutually exclusive.
We already know Israel considers Palestinians lives to be worthless.
Anyone attempting to help a Palestinian also forfeit its life. We see IDF snipers shooting anyone who tries to help someone injured during the conflicts.
We have seen numerous casualties among aid workers.
We do not know for certain what is Israel's stance about aid workers helping the Palestinians. We know they reject the claim of neutrality by UNRWA because of a few incidents. While they still claim their own innocence after thousands of incidents.
What we know for certain is that this government considers anyone helping an injured Palestinian to be a terrorist and they will strike them down. We have it on video, we have the official policy.
From there, what do you infer about Israel's actions?
One of the differences between the Ukraine war and the Gaza war is that civilians are directly targeted in the Ukraine war. It seems to be a Russian strategy to force Ukraine to defend all its assets, not just its military assets, from bombardment. Israel is not doing that, because for one their enemy is not exactly the kind to compromise their military assets to protect their civilians. They're actually fond of doing the reverse.
Quote from: DGuller on April 06, 2024, 01:10:19 PMOne of the differences between the Ukraine war and the Gaza war is that civilians are directly targeted in the Ukraine war. It seems to be a Russian strategy to force Ukraine to defend all its assets, not just its military assets, from bombardment. Israel is not doing that, because for one their enemy is not exactly the kind to compromise their military assets to protect their civilians. They're actually fond of doing the reverse.
Hamas will bravely fight to the last Palestinian child from Qatar.
So, they're chopping off limbs now. And not the side you'd expect.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/06/middleeast/doctor-israel-hospital-conditions-intl/index.html
I mean would you rather they let them become gangrenous and kill them?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 06, 2024, 03:35:11 PMI mean would you rather they let them become gangrenous and kill them?
I believe the concerning part is prisoners kept under such vile conditions that their restraints rot away their limbs.
I assume they are being held in conditions no worse than the Israeli hostages being held by Hamas.
Quote from: Tamas on April 06, 2024, 10:25:08 AMWell we didn't let Axis soldiers off the hook (with exceptions), maybe legally but not morally; but we did let Allied forces off the hook be it Western terror bombing or to a lesser extent the Soviet rape-rampage through Germany and Hungary.
How many Germans did the the US, UK and France were forcibly displaced to Canada so they could colonize Germany with their own citizens?
Potsdam Agreement? :unsure:
Quote from: viper37 on April 06, 2024, 05:12:34 PMQuote from: Tamas on April 06, 2024, 10:25:08 AMWell we didn't let Axis soldiers off the hook (with exceptions), maybe legally but not morally; but we did let Allied forces off the hook be it Western terror bombing or to a lesser extent the Soviet rape-rampage through Germany and Hungary.
How many Germans did the the US, UK and France were forcibly displaced to Canada so they could colonize Germany with their own citizens?
There are no colonists in Israel.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 06, 2024, 04:56:13 PMI assume they are being held in conditions no worse than the Israeli hostages being held by Hamas.
What you are saying is that Israelis are no better than Palestinians as a society, or that the IDF in itself is no better than Hamas in its treatment of POWs?
Is that your informed opinion as an expert or a statement of fact?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 06, 2024, 05:23:10 PMQuote from: viper37 on April 06, 2024, 05:12:34 PMQuote from: Tamas on April 06, 2024, 10:25:08 AMWell we didn't let Axis soldiers off the hook (with exceptions), maybe legally but not morally; but we did let Allied forces off the hook be it Western terror bombing or to a lesser extent the Soviet rape-rampage through Germany and Hungary.
How many Germans did the the US, UK and France were forcibly displaced to Canada so they could colonize Germany with their own citizens?
There are no colonists in Israel.
Of course there aren't. They conquer a territory, they displace the people, they annex the territory to make it part of Israel. No more colonists.
They didn't conquer territory, they were assigned territory by the UN and an Arab coalition tried to take it.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 06, 2024, 06:33:49 PMThey didn't conquer territory, they were assigned territory by the UN and an Arab coalition tried to take it.
They did conquer territory. They were unsatisfied with what the UN was giving them, they waited for the Arab coalition to DOW them, they got help from Uncle Stalin, attacked the coalition, massacred some of the civilians, occupied their territory and refused to allow those who fled the massacres back in the territory.
And we've been over that before, but you insist with your alternative facts about the Arab League telling Palestinians to leave, which has been demonstrated to be false.
Ah yes, that genius plan of "get invaded day 1 of your existence." Man, you just really can't see past the "evil Jews rule the world" shit you were steeped in can you?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 06, 2024, 07:03:15 PMAh yes, that genius plan of "get invaded day 1 of your existence." Man, you just really can't see past the "evil Jews rule the world" shit you were steeped in can you?
Now, you see antisemites everywhere. I'd question my own attitudes toward life if I were you. It's hiding something. Kinda like the Republicans who are so fervently against homosexuality and keep getting caught in airport bathrooms with other guys.
Quote from: viper37 on April 06, 2024, 07:00:34 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 06, 2024, 06:33:49 PMThey didn't conquer territory, they were assigned territory by the UN and an Arab coalition tried to take it.
They did conquer territory. They were unsatisfied with what the UN was giving them, they waited for the Arab coalition to DOW them, they got help from Uncle Stalin, attacked the coalition, massacred some of the civilians, occupied their territory and refused to allow those who fled the massacres back in the territory.
And we've been over that before, but you insist with your alternative facts about the Arab League telling Palestinians to leave, which has been demonstrated to be false.
viper, this is stupid. Even for you. They were unsatisfied with the UN agreement so they waited for the Arabs to declare war? What kind of stupid plan is that?
Quote from: viper37 on April 06, 2024, 05:12:34 PMQuote from: Tamas on April 06, 2024, 10:25:08 AMWell we didn't let Axis soldiers off the hook (with exceptions), maybe legally but not morally; but we did let Allied forces off the hook be it Western terror bombing or to a lesser extent the Soviet rape-rampage through Germany and Hungary.
How many Germans did the the US, UK and France were forcibly displaced to Canada so they could colonize Germany with their own citizens?
We've been over this, did you forget? The Soviets forcibly displaced 12 million Germans and colonized that territory with their own citizens and that of Poland.
Quote from: Josquius on April 06, 2024, 03:40:47 AMNot close to what I said at all.
Different people will have different ideas but with where Israel is now basically everyone, even their usually wilfully blind allies, agree they've gone too far.
Different people have different ideas but some of them are willfully blind. Mine is the right one.
Not that my point was that original or interesting, but it is still remarkable how the three of you just miss it entirely and return to rehearsing the same argument for the umpteenth time.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 06, 2024, 04:56:13 PMI assume they are being held in conditions no worse than the Israeli hostages being held by Hamas.
I don't think Hamas is a good baseline for how to treat the other side in a war. Presumably Israel can do much better than that.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 06, 2024, 04:56:13 PMI assume they are being held in conditions no worse than the Israeli hostages being held by Hamas.
We westerners strive to behave humane because it's the right thing to do, not because our enemies do it, because if they did they wouldn't be our enemies.
I can't imagine a more pointless protest than this one. Israelis that want hostages released.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 06, 2024, 08:02:57 PMQuote from: viper37 on April 06, 2024, 05:12:34 PMQuote from: Tamas on April 06, 2024, 10:25:08 AMWell we didn't let Axis soldiers off the hook (with exceptions), maybe legally but not morally; but we did let Allied forces off the hook be it Western terror bombing or to a lesser extent the Soviet rape-rampage through Germany and Hungary.
How many Germans did the the US, UK and France were forcibly displaced to Canada so they could colonize Germany with their own citizens?
We've been over this, did you forget? The Soviets forcibly displaced 12 million Germans and colonized that territory with their own citizens and that of Poland.
Where did I mention the USSR in this?
If you shelter a snake and you act surprised when the snake bites you...
Quote from: Razgovory on April 06, 2024, 08:01:26 PMWhat kind of stupid plan is that?
We've discuss this before, it's all in Ben Gurion's note that they know the Arabs will not accept the plan and will attack.
He convinces the others to accept the plan because it's only temporary, knowing there will be a war and they will fight back, taking more territory than the plan allows for.
You don't gain anything by waiting for it to be served/given to you. Do you not understand the concept of taking risks to gain something more?
Okay, and in your world because a Jewish leader suspect the Arabs would reject the UN Partition Plan, it is the Jews fault they got attacked? You really are just a bigoted antisemite.
Quote from: viper37 on April 07, 2024, 04:28:35 PMQuote from: Razgovory on April 06, 2024, 08:02:57 PMQuote from: viper37 on April 06, 2024, 05:12:34 PMQuote from: Tamas on April 06, 2024, 10:25:08 AMWell we didn't let Axis soldiers off the hook (with exceptions), maybe legally but not morally; but we did let Allied forces off the hook be it Western terror bombing or to a lesser extent the Soviet rape-rampage through Germany and Hungary.
How many Germans did the the US, UK and France were forcibly displaced to Canada so they could colonize Germany with their own citizens?
We've been over this, did you forget? The Soviets forcibly displaced 12 million Germans and colonized that territory with their own citizens and that of Poland.
Where did I mention the USSR in this?
If you shelter a snake and you act surprised when the snake bites you...
No you kept out the relevant parties. I can do that too. How many Palestinians did the Chinese forcibly displace to Brazil so they could colonize the land?
I heard there were some Jewish leaders that did some stuff and because of that they ended up in Auschwitz (where they belong) per viper.
Quoteeveryone is stupid except me
Ironic from you on this topic.
QuoteI heard there were some Jewish leaders that did some stuff and because of that they ended up in Auschwitz (where they belong) per viper.
You're the only one saying anything close to this.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2024, 09:54:07 PMQuote from: Josquius on April 06, 2024, 03:40:47 AMNot close to what I said at all.
Different people will have different ideas but with where Israel is now basically everyone, even their usually wilfully blind allies, agree they've gone too far.
Different people have different ideas but some of them are willfully blind. Mine is the right one.
How would you describe the general US attitude to Israel then if not wilfully blind?
Hands off? Trusting?
Eliminate that judgement from what I said if you want, the point holds. Even those who are usually unquestionably supportive of Israel are indicating they're not pleased with current events.
Quote from: viper37 on April 06, 2024, 07:00:34 PMThey were unsatisfied with what the UN was giving them, they waited for the Arab coalition to DOW them
What strikes me about this comment is the complete denial of Arab agency. They aren't real people making real choices, just passive things being manipulated by others.
There is a hypothetical world where the Arabs grudgingly accept the Partition Plan borders and make a real effort to live in peace with Israel. It's a world that very likely looks a lot better for the Palestinians. It's worth asking why that world didn't come about. Hint- it's not just because Ben-Gurion's voodoo manipulated the Arabs into a failed attempt at ethnic cleansing.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 08, 2024, 09:47:07 AMQuote from: viper37 on April 06, 2024, 07:00:34 PMThey were unsatisfied with what the UN was giving them, they waited for the Arab coalition to DOW them
What strikes me about this comment is the complete denial of Arab agency. They aren't real people making real choices, just passive things being manipulated by others.
There is a hypothetical world where the Arabs grudgingly accept the Partition Plan borders and make a real effort to live in peace with Israel. It's a world that very likely looks a lot better for the Palestinians. It's worth asking why that world didn't come about. Hint- it's not just because Ben-Gurion's voodoo manipulated the Arabs into a failed attempt at ethnic cleansing.
There is also a world in which the Zionists accept the partition plan passed in the UN, and do not announce the state of Israel immediately upon the withdrawal of the British.
But such a hypothetical world doesn't exist, because there was no trust in the UN process and for good reason.
It's inconsistent to condemn the Arabs for attacking, but leave the Israelis blameless. It is also extreme folly to exclude the British from any blame for just throwing up their hands I'm leaving, knowing that they were leaving a volatile power vacuum behind.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2024, 10:03:16 AMThere is also a world in which the Zionists accept the partition plan passed in the UN, and do not announce the state of Israel immediately upon the withdrawal of the British.
I struggle to see how this makes a difference.
Quote from: Josquius on April 08, 2024, 02:58:02 AMHow would you describe the general US attitude to Israel then if not wilfully blind?
Hands off? Trusting?
Eliminate that judgement from what I said if you want, the point holds. Even those who are usually unquestionably supportive of Israel are indicating they're not pleased with current events.
Do we also eliminate the judgement "unquestionably supportive" if that's what I want?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 08, 2024, 02:11:30 PMQuote from: Josquius on April 08, 2024, 02:58:02 AMHow would you describe the general US attitude to Israel then if not wilfully blind?
Hands off? Trusting?
Eliminate that judgement from what I said if you want, the point holds. Even those who are usually unquestionably supportive of Israel are indicating they're not pleased with current events.
Do we also eliminate the judgement "unquestionably supportive" if that's what I want?
No, because that's the typical US position which has changed to abstention.
Quote from: Josquius on April 08, 2024, 02:55:28 PMNo, because that's the typical US position which has changed to abstention.
.
OK. Just keep repeating that then, but leave off the part about "everyone has an opinion." It's meaningless. It has no content. It's intended to create the illusion of reasonableness.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2024, 12:38:04 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2024, 10:03:16 AMThere is also a world in which the Zionists accept the partition plan passed in the UN, and do not announce the state of Israel immediately upon the withdrawal of the British.
I struggle to see how this makes a difference.
You would need to read the next two paragraphs of my post to understand the point. If you just read the first paragraph, then I'm not surprised that you are struggling.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 08, 2024, 09:47:07 AMQuote from: viper37 on April 06, 2024, 07:00:34 PMThey were unsatisfied with what the UN was giving them, they waited for the Arab coalition to DOW them
What strikes me about this comment is the complete denial of Arab agency. They aren't real people making real choices, just passive things being manipulated by others.
There is a hypothetical world where the Arabs grudgingly accept the Partition Plan borders and make a real effort to live in peace with Israel. It's a world that very likely looks a lot better for the Palestinians. It's worth asking why that world didn't come about. Hint- it's not just because Ben-Gurion's voodoo manipulated the Arabs into a failed attempt at ethnic cleansing.
They're not manipulated. How do you get that from what I wrote?
Ben Gurion and his faction knew they would attack because they would reject the UN partition plan.
A faction of the Israeli leadership wanted to reject the plan because it wasn't enough, Ben Gurion convinced them to accept the partition plan because they would gain more territory in the coming war anyway.
It's not about the Arab leader's agency.
Where did I mention them?
They had agency: they chose to reject the partition plan and attack. They could have agreed to it, or try to negotiate something else before hand, or even after, though that was difficult due to conditions on the field.
But it is the truth about Ben Gurion and his faction, and we've discussed this before.
It's not about some magic wand or some secret nefarious plot to control the world. It's about having a strategic mind.
You don't become a successful revolutionary because you are the most stupid and delicate flower of the rebels.
His faction knew they were getting help from Stalin and were in a good position to win the coming war. They took advantage of it to expand their territory at the expense of the Palestinians.
Would the Arabs have done the same to the Jewish-Israelis if the conditions were reversed? Most likely.
That does not mean the expulsion and the whole colonization process that came after was justified by any God given right, was morally right in any way, or that any action of Israel and the IDF, or the various factions preceding the formation of the State should just be shrugged of. You know better than that.
OK, Ben-Gurion had a strategic mind. Then what?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2024, 05:56:01 PMQuote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2024, 12:38:04 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2024, 10:03:16 AMThere is also a world in which the Zionists accept the partition plan passed in the UN, and do not announce the state of Israel immediately upon the withdrawal of the British.
I struggle to see how this makes a difference.
You would need to read the next two paragraphs of my post to understand the point. If you just read the first paragraph, then I'm not surprised that you are struggling.
You posed a counterfactual. Then posted several posts irrelevant to it. The Zionists not declaring a state wouldn't have an affect on British withdrawal or the UN. Certainly the British have blame in this, they could have stopped the Arab armies. But they kinda wanted the Arabs to win. Sadly, the UN agreement would not work so long as Arab pride, hate and racism were motivating factors.
"Palestine is ours, the Jews are our dogs". A large number of non-subservient Jews in Palestine could simply not be tolerated. It was one thing that Europeans could take over, they were numerous and well armed. But Jews? The people miserable little people we spit on and throw rocks at? That's too much!
That is the primary cause of the war.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2024, 06:55:52 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2024, 05:56:01 PMQuote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2024, 12:38:04 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2024, 10:03:16 AMThere is also a world in which the Zionists accept the partition plan passed in the UN, and do not announce the state of Israel immediately upon the withdrawal of the British.
I struggle to see how this makes a difference.
You would need to read the next two paragraphs of my post to understand the point. If you just read the first paragraph, then I'm not surprised that you are struggling.
You posed a counterfactual. Then posted several posts irrelevant to it. The Zionists not declaring a state wouldn't have an affect on British withdrawal or the UN. Certainly the British have blame in this, they could have stopped the Arab armies. But they kinda wanted the Arabs to win. Sadly, the UN agreement would not work so long as Arab pride, hate and racism were motivating factors.
"Palestine is ours, the Jews are our dogs". A large number of non-subservient Jews in Palestine could simply not be tolerated. It was one thing that Europeans could take over, they were numerous and well armed. But Jews? The people miserable little people we spit on and throw rocks at? That's too much!
That is the primary cause of the war.
If it's the counterfactual you don't like then you should probably take that up with JR since I was responding to his version of the counterfactual.
The fact that you didn't notice that really displays how difficult it is for you to appreciate the other side of the argument.
I thought you were making up your own. Actually, what is your point? The Jews are not blameless in the Jihad to destroy them? I've seen that argument before.
QuoteK. Just keep repeating that then, but leave off the part about "everyone has an opinion." It's meaningless. It has no content. It's intended to create the illusion of reasonableness.
:lol:
What on earth are you talking about?
I'm stating a pretty uncontroversial fact here. Look at the history of UN votes around Israel and Palestine and the US is consistently there, often fairly lonely, backing up Israel.
This time around they abstained which was a very big deal and sent a clear message to the world that they wanted Israel to chill out a bit.
When even Israel's strongest supporter is telling them to cool it a little, then its pretty clear we're in territory where basically everyone who matters agrees Israel is not doing a good job.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2024, 06:55:52 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2024, 05:56:01 PMQuote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2024, 12:38:04 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2024, 10:03:16 AMThere is also a world in which the Zionists accept the partition plan passed in the UN, and do not announce the state of Israel immediately upon the withdrawal of the British.
I struggle to see how this makes a difference.
You would need to read the next two paragraphs of my post to understand the point. If you just read the first paragraph, then I'm not surprised that you are struggling.
You posed a counterfactual. Then posted several posts irrelevant to it. The Zionists not declaring a state wouldn't have an affect on British withdrawal or the UN. Certainly the British have blame in this, they could have stopped the Arab armies. But they kinda wanted the Arabs to win. Sadly, the UN agreement would not work so long as Arab pride, hate and racism were motivating factors.
"Palestine is ours, the Jews are our dogs". A large number of non-subservient Jews in Palestine could simply not be tolerated. It was one thing that Europeans could take over, they were numerous and well armed. But Jews? The people miserable little people we spit on and throw rocks at? That's too much!
That is the primary cause of the war.
"Between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea there will be only one state, which is Israel."
"In the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea"
"We're Rolling Out Nakba 2023"
But sure. Its only the Palestinian side which has genocidal cunts in prominent positions.
Quote from: Josquius on April 09, 2024, 03:08:01 AM"Between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea there will be only one state, which is Israel."
"In the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea"
"We're Rolling Out Nakba 2023"
But sure. Its only the Palestinian side which has genocidal cunts in prominent positions.
'48 Jos. But I'll bite, who on the Palestinian side is not a cunt? I mean figuratively. I don't think they have many women in leadership positions there.
Quote from: viper37 on April 08, 2024, 06:15:03 PMHis faction knew they were getting help from Stalin and were in a good position to win the coming war.
What's this business about Stalin? The Soviets voted for partition because they wanted to weaken Britain. Stalin didn't give any help to Israel. The Czech arms shipments began under Masaryk, before the coup. The only thing the Soviets did was not stop them. The Czechs were well paid for it.
Quote from: Josquius on April 09, 2024, 03:08:01 AMQuoteK. Just keep repeating that then, but leave off the part about "everyone has an opinion." It's meaningless. It has no content. It's intended to create the illusion of reasonableness.
:lol:
What on earth are you talking about?
I'm stating a pretty uncontroversial fact here. Look at the history of UN votes around Israel and Palestine and the US is consistently there, often fairly lonely, backing up Israel.
This time around they abstained which was a very big deal and sent a clear message to the world that they wanted Israel to chill out a bit.
When even Israel's strongest supporter is telling them to cool it a little, then its pretty clear we're in territory where basically everyone who matters agrees Israel is not doing a good job.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2024, 06:55:52 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2024, 05:56:01 PMQuote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2024, 12:38:04 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2024, 10:03:16 AMThere is also a world in which the Zionists accept the partition plan passed in the UN, and do not announce the state of Israel immediately upon the withdrawal of the British.
I struggle to see how this makes a difference.
You would need to read the next two paragraphs of my post to understand the point. If you just read the first paragraph, then I'm not surprised that you are struggling.
You posed a counterfactual. Then posted several posts irrelevant to it. The Zionists not declaring a state wouldn't have an affect on British withdrawal or the UN. Certainly the British have blame in this, they could have stopped the Arab armies. But they kinda wanted the Arabs to win. Sadly, the UN agreement would not work so long as Arab pride, hate and racism were motivating factors.
"Palestine is ours, the Jews are our dogs". A large number of non-subservient Jews in Palestine could simply not be tolerated. It was one thing that Europeans could take over, they were numerous and well armed. But Jews? The people miserable little people we spit on and throw rocks at? That's too much!
That is the primary cause of the war.
"Between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea there will be only one state, which is Israel."
"In the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea"
"We're Rolling Out Nakba 2023"
But sure. Its only the Palestinian side which has genocidal cunts in prominent positions.
There's really no point in interacting with him any further on this issue. He has internalized a falsehood that the Israelis are only good, and the Palestinians are only bad. The only thing that's differentiating him from Otto is Otto is going full facsist.
That strawman again? :rolleyes:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 09, 2024, 09:00:59 AMQuote from: viper37 on April 08, 2024, 06:15:03 PMHis faction knew they were getting help from Stalin and were in a good position to win the coming war.
What's this business about Stalin? The Soviets voted for partition because they wanted to weaken Britain. Stalin didn't give any help to Israel. The Czech arms shipments began under Masaryk, before the coup. The only thing the Soviets did was not stop them. The Czechs were well paid for it.
He turned a blind eye to the arms shipment coming from the Eastern bloc.
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1948v05p2/d512
QuoteThe arms and equipment of neither Jews nor Arabs are sufficient for prolonged, full-scale hostilities, and both sides are involved in negotiations for obtaining matériel from various outside sources. The Jews have managed in various ways surreptitiously to acquire large amounts of arms and equipment from British Army stocks in Palestine. [Page 1282] The arms and equipment of neither Jews nor Arabs are sufficient for prolonged, full-scale hostilities, and both sides are involved in negotiations for obtaining matériel from various outside sources. The Jews have managed in various ways surreptitiously to acquire large amounts of arms and equipment from British Army stocks in Palestine. [Page 1282] The efforts of Zionist agents abroad have resulted in the stockpiling of quantities of small arms, automatic weapons, and ammunition in various eastern European countries for eventual shipment to Palestine. Most of these stocks come from Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and possibly from Poland and the USSR. Jewish acquisitions from the US consist mainly of machinery, motor vehicles, and air transport. The Israeli forces are much more concerned with obtaining such heavier equipment than in acquiring small arms. Jewish acquisitions from the US consist mainly of machinery, motor vehicles, and air transport. The Israeli forces are much more concerned with obtaining such heavier equipment than in acquiring small arms.
Stalin would never have let anything leave Czechoslovakia, especially not USSR weapons shipment if it did not serve his interests to brew trouble in the ME.
It is help toward the creation of Israel, whether they were compensated or not. It could have easily been embargoed, it was not. The USSR turned a blind eye to it, the same way America would do it later in numerous conflicts during the Cold War.
As it is now, I'm not sure all US military shipments to Israel are free, yet it's considered military help. Why would it not be so for the USSR?
It's a different situation with Ukraine where no country expect to be paid back for anything.
Viper, isn't it as simple as saying that Palestine was yet another pawn in the Cold War?
The US was concerned that the Arabs would be supported by the Soviets and so we're at first concerned about alienating the Arabs, but in the end sided with Israel, and of course, that meant that the Soviets would certainly support the Arabs, and the Arabs would be forced to accept that support, because in a bipolar world once one of the chooses aside, the other side is definitely going to the other bipolar power.
You know the Czechs sold to both sides, yeah?
The Czechs (and thus the Communist bloc) got millions in hard currency selling second rate war surplus like Czech knock off early 40s model Messerschmidts, broken down Spitfires and surplus rifles and ammo. All Stalin did was not stop it from happening for a short time until Mapam (the Israeli labor communists) lost the election to Ben Gurion's party, at which time Stalin cut off the sales. This was at the time the "rootless cosmopolitan" campaign was getting started in the Soviet Union with explicit attacks on Jews and Zionism. Stalin's sole interest and motivation was undermining the British, nothing more; his role was entirely passive; the notion of some kind of Ben Gurion-Stalin alliance is complete fantasy.
France on the other hand would emerge as a real and effective supporter of Israel's military for many years, providing top end kit and culminating in critical contributions to the Israeli nuclear program
Quote from: Josquius on April 09, 2024, 03:08:01 AM:lol:
What on earth are you talking about?
I'm stating a pretty uncontroversial fact here. Look at the history of UN votes around Israel and Palestine and the US is consistently there, often fairly lonely, backing up Israel.
This time around they abstained which was a very big deal and sent a clear message to the world that they wanted Israel to chill out a bit.
When even Israel's strongest supporter is telling them to cool it a little, then its pretty clear we're in territory where basically everyone who matters agrees Israel is not doing a good job.
I'm talking about the hypocrisy of repeating "everyone has an opinion."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 09, 2024, 01:35:07 PMQuote from: Josquius on April 09, 2024, 03:08:01 AM:lol:
What on earth are you talking about?
I'm stating a pretty uncontroversial fact here. Look at the history of UN votes around Israel and Palestine and the US is consistently there, often fairly lonely, backing up Israel.
This time around they abstained which was a very big deal and sent a clear message to the world that they wanted Israel to chill out a bit.
When even Israel's strongest supporter is telling them to cool it a little, then its pretty clear we're in territory where basically everyone who matters agrees Israel is not doing a good job.
I'm talking about the hypocrisy of repeating "everyone has an opinion."
The word hypocrisy is about as relevant as the word banana here
Good news, and a reminder: don't cry crocodile tears for dead Palestinians, they don't even love their own children. They only care about killing, and hating, Jews. (To also be clear the three sons were all adults, and were actively engaged in terroristic acts.)
QuoteIsrael kills 3 sons of Hamas chief Haniyeh in Gaza strike, says they were terrorists
IDF says relatives were 'en route to carry out terror activity'; 2 grandchildren also killed; Qatar-based terror chief tells Al Jazeera he thanks God 'for honor of their martyrdom'
By EMANUEL FABIAN, FOLLOW
GIANLUCA PACCHIANI FOLLOW
and AGENCIES
Today, 8:04 pm Updated at 8:41 pm
Israel on Wednesday killed three sons of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in a strike in the northern Gaza Strip, saying they were operatives in the terror group. Two of Haniyeh's grandchildren were also killed in the attack and a third was wounded, Hamas media said.
The three sons — Hazem, Amir and Mohammad — were killed after the car they were driving in was struck in Gaza City's Shati camp, Hamas said.
The deaths were first reported by Al Jazeera and then confirmed by Haniyeh himself and Hamas.
The IDF and Shin Bet later confirmed killing the three men, saying they were operatives in the terror group. According to the IDF and Shin Bet, Amir Haniyeh was a squad commander in the Hamas military wing, while Hazem and Mohammad Haniyeh were lower-ranking operatives, also in the military wing.
The IDF said that the trio were "en route to carry out terror activity in the area of central Gaza" when they were struck.
Haniyeh, the political leader of Hamas who is largely based in Qatar, confirmed their deaths in comments to Al Jazeera, telling the news outlet that he "thanks God for bestowing upon us the honor of their martyrdom."
In a phone interview broadcast on the TV network, the terror leader vowed that the group will not surrender, and that such actions will not make it change its goals and its demands in hostage release talks.
"Their pure blood is for the liberation of Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa, and we will continue to march on our road, and will not hesitate and will not falter," Haniyeh said. "With their blood, we bring about hope, a future and freedom for our people and our cause."
"Our demands are clear and specific and we will not make concessions on them. The enemy will be delusional if it thinks that targeting my sons, at the climax of the negotiations and before the movement sends its response, will push Hamas to change its position," he told the TV station, adding that "the blood of my sons is not dearer than the blood of our people."
According to Hebrew media reports, the strike on Haniyeh's three sons was not discussed in the war cabinet ahead of time, despite the sensitive timing as Israel is still awaiting an official Hamas response to the latest hostage deal offer.
The Ynet and Walla news outlets cited unnamed Israeli officials saying Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant were not informed in advance of the strike. A source told Kan news that the strike could jeopardize the ongoing talks.
A video circulating online purports to show the moment Haniyeh is told of his sons' deaths while visiting a hospital in Qatar. He calmly praises God and then suggests the tour continue on to the next room. It is not clear whether the video was genuine or staged.
Haniyeh told Al Jazeera that nearly 60 members of his family had been "martyred" in the war, and that he has paid the same price as the rest of the Palestinian people.
His eldest son confirmed in a Facebook post that his three brothers were killed. "Thanks to God who honored us by the martyrdom of my brothers, Hazem, Amir and Mohammad and their children," wrote Abdel-Salam Haniyeh.
Al Jazeera reported that the three men were struck by a missile launched from a drone as they were traveling in a car on their way to congratulate relatives and acquaintances on the occasion of the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr, which began Tuesday evening.
Appointed to head the terror group in 2017, Haniyeh has moved between Turkey and Qatar's capital Doha, and has emerged as the most prominent negotiator in the latest ongoing round of talks for a truce and hostage release deal. Israel sent a delegation to talks in Cairo this week, while Hamas representatives have also been in the Egyptian capital for negotiations.
While some officials have expressed optimism that a deal could be reached after months of stalled talks, so far Hamas appears to be sticking to its demand that the war end before it agrees to release any of the hostages the terror group kidnapped from Israel on October 7 who are still being held in the Strip. Israel has outright rejected such a demand.
Thousands of Hamas terrorists poured across the border with Israel in a mass assault on October 7, killing close to 1,200 people and kidnapping 253 to Gaza. During a weeklong truce in late November, 105 of the hostages were released, four were freed earlier and three have been rescued alive by troops, while the bodies of 12 hostages have been recovered. The IDF believes that 129 of those kidnapped remain in the Strip, including at least 34 bodies.
During Israel's ensuing war against Hamas in Gaza, the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry says more than 33,000 people have been killed in the fighting, an unverified figure that includes some 13,000 Hamas gunmen Israel says it has killed in battle. Since the IDF ground invasion began, 260 IDF soldiers have been killed in the fighting.
Last week, Haniyeh said that the terror group was not prepared to budge on any of the conditions it had previously laid out, saying in a televised speech that "we are committed to our demands: the permanent ceasefire, comprehensive and complete withdrawal of the enemy out of the Gaza Strip, the return of all displaced people to their homes, allowing all aid needed for our people in Gaza, rebuilding the Strip, lifting the blockade and achieving an honorable prisoner exchange deal."
Earlier this month, police in Israel arrested Haniyeh's sister, an Israeli citizen living in Tel Sheva. Three of the Hamas leader's sisters live in the southern town and were married to Arab Israelis. Two are now widowed and have fallen foul of Israeli authorities in the past by making illegal trips into Gaza in 2013 via Egypt. They were both given eight-month suspended sentences for the visits in 2015. Later that year, Israel denied Haniyeh's request that his sisters be permitted to attend his son's wedding in Gaza.
Times of Israel staff contributed to this report.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 10, 2024, 01:19:58 PMGood news, and a reminder: don't cry crocodile tears for dead Palestinians, they don't even love their own children. They only care about killing, and hating, Jews. (To also be clear the three sons were all adults, and were actively engaged in terroristic acts.)
[
Sure. And during the eclipse Israelis top rabbis engaged in a massive orgy where they fucked all night long and sacrificed 666 Christian children to Moloch. Cos Jews.
Quote from: Josquius on April 10, 2024, 03:05:32 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 10, 2024, 01:19:58 PMGood news, and a reminder: don't cry crocodile tears for dead Palestinians, they don't even love their own children. They only care about killing, and hating, Jews. (To also be clear the three sons were all adults, and were actively engaged in terroristic acts.)
[
Sure. And during the eclipse Israelis top rabbis engaged in a massive orgy where they fucked all night long and sacrificed 666 Christian children to Moloch. Cos Jews.
There's lots of anti-zionists who believe that.
That fucker in Qatar gets so excited when he hears more Palestinians got killed.
More extreme antisemitism from the blatantly antisemitic anti-Israeli coalition, this time lead by hateful and corrupt South Africa (a Russian proxy state.)
Take careful note--they make no attempt to make a distinction of "Israeli" vs "Jew", they are specifically mocking Jews and mocking the Holocaust--Israel was not even a country when the Holocaust happened so there is pretty clearly a mindset that they aren't against Israel, they are against
all Jews.
I truly do believe this is the majority mindset of people who are anti-Israel, especially in the Global South and Europe. I am open to the idea it is less of a problem in America, at least now (although American Muslims are prone to antisemitism), but Europe just has a big reservoir of hatred for Jews. Britain is actually one of the worst since it was a major facilitator of the Holocaust and was largely indifferent to it occurring, combined with being virulently pro-Arab and anti-Jew during Israel's formative years.
You really can't trust the people in these countries on the matter of Jews, antisemitism is too much of a baked in cultural value.
https://www.sajr.co.za/holocaust-parody-at-uct-intended-to-offend-jews/
QuoteHolocaust parody at UCT 'intended to offend Jews
South African Jews were horrified this week at the erection of a deeply offensive sculpture on the University of Cape Town (UCT) campus on 2 April that mocks the horror inflicted upon Jews during the Holocaust.
Fine arts student Ylara Salie made a copy of the bronze memorial plaque at the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp, which said, "Forever let this place be a cry of despair and a warning to humanity, where the Nazis murdered about one and a half million men, women and children, mainly Jews, from various countries of Europe. Auschwitz-Birkenau 1940-1945."
On her version, she placed the word "Israel" over the words "the Nazis", the number "28 000" over the words "one and a half million", the word "Muslim" over the word "Jews", the word "Gaza" over "various countries of Europe", the word "Palestine" over the words "Auschwitz-Birkenau", and the date "1948-" over the date 1940-1945, implying that her version of a "Holocaust" began in 1948. She then called on students to adopt the Jewish memorial custom of placing pebbles on the plaque, which she titled, "Never Again".
This sculpture appeared a week after anti-Israel students and members of the public harassed and hurled abuse at Jewish students during so-called "Israeli Apartheid Week" (IAW).
"The sheer unapologetic antisemitism at UCT has gone too far," said South African Union of Jewish Students Western Cape (SAUJS WC) Chairperson Erin Dodo, speaking in her personal capacity. "How do you expect Jewish students to react to seeing their history literally erased for the purpose of an art project?"
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism used by most countries in the world makes it clear that "drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis" is antisemitic.
"The parody of the Auschwitz-Birkenau monument that appeared today on UCT campus goes beyond merely falsifying history for ideological purposes," read the SAUJS WC statement released on 2 April, calling for the sculpture's permanent removal. "It's a deliberate distortion of past realities with an aim of causing maximum hurt to Jewish people.
"When protests against Israel take so ugly a form, it's clear that anti-Jewish bigotry is at the core of these protests rather than any valid concern about justice and human rights."
The sculpture has since been removed. It's unclear if Salie had permission to erect it, but Cape South African Jewish Board of Deputies (Cape SAJBD) Executive Director Daniel Bloch said the Cape SAJBD was investigating the matter.
"The Cape SAJBD believes in freedom of expression," said Chairperson Adrienne Jacobson. "However, the student at the Michaelis School of Fine Arts, which is part of UCT, has crossed the lines between innovative artwork and that which is offensive and hurtful.
"The use of the Holocaust plaque is highly insensitive and is disrespectful to the memory of the six million Jews who were systematically executed by the Nazis," said Jacobson. "While we mourn all loss of life and believe the death of Palestinian civilians is tragic, it doesn't give anyone the right to diminish the atrocities of the Holocaust. We're engaging with Michaelis, and will be investigating this matter further."
Professor Adam Mendelsohn, the director of the Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies, said, "The 'artwork's' message is doubly offensive. It invokes and literally overwrites the sacred memory of those who died at Auschwitz-Birkenau. And it lays the terrible price of the war in Gaza at the feet of the Jewish people – not Hamas, not Israel, but Jews. Given that UCT commits to principles and policies designed to advance inclusivity and respect and is otherwise intolerant of prejudice, I trust that the university will take appropriate action."
Jakub Nowakowski, the director of the Cape Town Holocaust & Genocide Centre, said, "While the creator of this art project claims in her 'artist statement' that history repeats itself, we must make it clear that actually, it doesn't. In spite of the fact that after Auschwitz, the world witnessed other acts of genocide, never ever again was a site like Auschwitz-Birkenau created.
"The plaque that the project is based on is situated at the very end of the train track, which was purposely built in 1944 to allow for a more efficient process of killing more than 400 000 Hungarian Jews. It was almost 80 years ago, in May of 1944, when that mass-murder process began. The process of killing took place in gas chambers, which served no other goal but killing. The bodies were burned in crematorium ovens that served no other purpose than burning bodies. In such a way, 400 000 Hungarian Jews were killed in less than three months.
"Using the memory of those who suffered and died in such a place for an art project distorts history and reveals the author's lack of understanding of basic historical facts. It's also problematic because today, we understand how damaging it is to appropriate anyone's suffering. There's no doubt that the innocent victims of every conflict deserve remembrance. However, this shouldn't come at the expense of the memory of anyone else, including the more than one million Jews and tens of thousands of other victims who are remembered at Auschwitz."
Benji Shulman, the director of public policy at the South African Zionist Federation, said, "One of the cruellest aspects of the new antisemitism is its perverse use of the Holocaust as a stick to beat Jews. Our enemies make use of the Holocaust to criticise Israel and the Jews by equating Israel with Nazi Germany, and to characterise the Holocaust as a moral lesson from which the Jews have failed to learn.
"The accusation of genocide during the Israel-Hamas war is a false narrative," he said. "According to retired British Colonel Richard Kemp, the average combatant-to-civilian death ratio is about 1 to 1.5. This is astonishing since according to the United Nations, the average combatant-to-civilian death ratio in urban warfare has been 1 to 9. It's concerning that the artist, who visited Auschwitz-Birkenau, is unable to differentiate genocide from war."
"My inspiration came from Auschwitz-Birkenau," Salie, a third year sculpture student at UCT, wrote in her artist statement. "I visited the camp in December 2023. I couldn't understand how the same group of people that endured the horrors of the Holocaust was perpetuating the same violence against another group of people. The piece was created with the intention of showing the irony of the plaque I saw at Auschwitz-Birkenau."
Salie saw no irony in the fact that the war was started by Hamas after it perpetrated the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, on 7 October.
Responding to SAUJS's statement, she said she was "being silenced" by "the weaponisation of antisemitism".
The virulently antisemitic and terrorist-supporting UCT Palestinian Solidarity Forum (UCT PSF) said the artistic statement wasn't "meant to offend anyone besides the genocide supporters and Zionists in disguise. If the shoe fits, wear it."
On the same day, the UCT PSF said it supported a post titled "Reject normalisation, support the resistance: we don't want peace, we want freedom. We don't want to live side-by-side, we want the settlers to leave our land. There's no conversation to be had."
Along with abusing Jewish students during IAW, the UCT PSF invited Hezbollah and Houthi leaders to address UCT students via video calls. The Cape SAJBD continues to engage with the university to investigate these events.
UCT told the SA Jewish Report it was looking into the matter, but wasn't able to respond by the deadline given.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2024, 09:49:47 AMViper, isn't it as simple as saying that Palestine was yet another pawn in the Cold War?
Yes.
But it's irrelevant to Israel's actions when judging them.
I don't see Israel as a defenless victim that had no choice in doing what it did to survive. I don't buy that
GI Joe vs Cobra narrative. I leave that to Raz and OvB.
Cornel West and running mate refuse to condemn Hamas attack
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/12/politics/cornel-west-melina-abdullah-hamas/index.html
Quote03:22 - Source: CNN
CNN
—
Independent presidential candidate Cornel West and his running mate, Melina Abdullah, defended their pro-Palestinian views Thursday night in their first joint television interview since Abdullah joined West's campaign this week.
In an interview with CNN's Abby Phillip, the pair declined to call on Hamas to release hostages taken from Israel in exchange for a ceasefire, repeatedly refused to criticize Hamas for its actions in the war and opted not to condemn the group for the October 7 terrorist attacks in Israel.
Abdullah, a board member for Black Lives Matter Grassroots, said she "absolutely" stands behind a statement her group put out two days after October 7, which framed the terrorist attacks as "a desperate act of self-defense."
"I think it's really important to understand where uprisings come from, even when we may disagree with tactics that are used," Abdullah said.
Asked twice if she condemned the October 7 attacks, Abdullah declined to answer directly.
"I find it really troubling that we are constantly asked to condemn Hamas. I'm not a member of Hamas," Abdullah said. "I find it even more troubling that an entire state has been built on the genocide of a people, and I think that we have to start with that first,"
West also defended Hamas' actions by calling the October 7 attacks a "counterterrorist response."
"I don't believe in killing an innocent anybody," the independent presidential candidate said. "But you don't start with those voices without coming to terms with the vicious killings and occupations that's been going on for 75 years, and then you get a counterterrorist response to that."
Asked to clarify if he was referring to the October 7 attacks as a "counterterrorist response," West said, "Oh, absolutely."
The remarks by West and Abdullah come as the independent ticket actively courts support from Muslim Americans and progressives around the country amid dissatisfaction and anger at President Joe Biden's response to the Israel-Hamas war.
West has made the conflict in Gaza a central campaign issue, repeatedly calling for a permanent ceasefire and an end to Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories.
Abdullah expressed strong pro-Palestinian views prior to joining the campaign in connection with her work at Black Lives Matter Grassroots. A Muslim who was raised Baptist, Abdullah said on "The Tavis Smiley Show" on Wednesday – when West introduced her as his running mate – that her religious background ties into the core themes of the West campaign.
"People of faith all want the same thing. We want peace, we want truth, we want love, and we want justice," she said.
Pressed Thursday night by Phillip on whether Hamas should release hostages taken from Israel in exchange for a ceasefire – echoing the ceasefire deal proposed by the US – West instead put the onus on Israel to withdraw its military operation and end Palestinian occupation.
"The IDF is not gonna cease fire just for releasing. They themselves have to stop," West said, referring to the Israel Defense Forces. "The Palestinian lives that are being lost, we've got to start there."
"The IDF has engaged in terrorizing the Palestinians, and terrorizing anybody is wrong, but the terrorism that they are doing, it reaches the point of the crime of genocide. So, for me, they have to stop," he said.
West also said that while Hamas has some "responsibility" for the war in causing harm to civilians, "Hamas is not the culprit, it's the IDF, and they're terrorizing."
He also oppose Ukrainian aid. Weird how the far-left and the far-right come together like that.
Footage circulating of Iranian UAVs en route to Israel.
sigh.
Well, it's officially war, then.
Bombing the embassy could not be let without an official response, and here it is.
We'll see what happens next.
Was nice knowing everyone.
I wish Arsenal had won the league one last time before the world ended.
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 13, 2024, 04:29:11 PMWas nice knowing everyone.
I wish Arsenal had won the league one last time before the world ended.
Zombie Arsenal has the skill to go all the way
Any good analysis - from posters here or online - of likely scenarios from the current situation?
Probably the best opportunity to finally getting around to blasting apart their nuclear weapons program.
More seriously though...our messaging ahead of this "counterattack" has mostly been pretty pathetic and allowed Iran all of the initiative and momentum of fear. Media coverage has mostly been of the "OMG, what will they do to us!?" kind. That is, pretty darned weak.
Our messaging should have been much more of the "fuck around and find out" type.
Nety sticks around longer and thus out of jail longer.
Seeing reports of Muslims in Toronto celebrating the Iranian strikes on Israel. Islam is a true cancer on the West. I hope its leaders wake up before it is too late—maybe the people will wake them up, since most of us do not want these people in our society.
Yeah that's my first conclusion - good for Nethanyahu as he gets more shots at saving his skin by being a "war time hero PM".
Beyond that, though my questions are...
What does the shape of the actual fighting look like? Some mutual bombing + hezbollah escalation + increased terror attacks globally?
Who else may be drawn into actual fighting? Are there other Iranian or Russian clients who will act?
Is there a likelihood increased ground fighting?
How does this change the war vs Hamas?
How does this change the political landscape in the Muslim world? In the Arab world?
Will this potentially impact Iran's ability to support Russia?
I think both sides will just lob a few bombs. Both leaders look good to their people. Civilians will die, but neither seem to care. Won't escalate beyond that. I freely admit I could be way, way off
Strategically this just means the unspoken rule that the conflict between Iran and Israel, at least for the last 20 years or so, would exclude direct open strikes by one party on the territory of the other. Proxies etc were always fair game. This now opens up a lot more potential routes of escalation. Whether it escalates more is hard to say. Israel doesn't have much of a history of promising retaliation and not doing it, and they have already promised retaliation for this. So a lot will depend on how that looks and how Iran responds.
Netanyahu really shouldn't have bombed the Iranian embassy. We are trying to keep the whole world from spiraling out of control and here he is throwing sticks into the spokes. Guy needs to go, now.
We really do need to pump a shit tonne more money into lasers. Even if Iran hits nothing with these attacks they're costing their enemies a pretty penny.
Quote from: Josquius on April 13, 2024, 06:44:59 PMWe really do need to pump a shit tonne more money into lasers. Even if Iran hits nothing with these attacks they're costing their enemies a pretty penny.
Zombie Reagan might want to have a word with you... :P
Quote from: Razgovory on April 13, 2024, 06:44:13 PMNetanyahu really shouldn't have bombed the Iranian embassy. We are trying to keep the whole world from spiraling out of control and here he is throwing sticks into the spokes. Guy needs to go, now.
I think this is a convenient and dumb take. I think any Israeli leader would have done that. Israel is basically fighting a two front war against Iranian proxies and Iran is shuttling top military leaders around countries like Lebanon and Syria to coordinate with those proxies.
Iran is the party escalating here, by being actively involved in Israel's war. I don't agree Israel was wrong to strike an Iranian military target that was actively working with Hezbollah. I similarly agreed with Trump killing Soleimani.
Treating Iran like they aren't to be trifled with due to fear of "regional conflict" whilst meanwhile letting them increase their bad behaviors is a failed Western strategy that has lead to Iran with 3 powerful and destabilizing proxies in the Middle East, and Iran close to developing a nuclear weapon.
The West is dangerously close to a Chamberlain-esque appeasement story with Iran.
Quote from: Josquius on April 13, 2024, 06:44:59 PMWe really do need to pump a shit tonne more money into lasers.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 13, 2024, 06:28:31 PMSeeing reports of Muslims in Toronto celebrating the Iranian strikes on Israel. Islam is a true cancer on the West. I hope its leaders wake up before it is too late—maybe the people will wake them up, since most of us do not want these people in our society.
I mean we have freedom of religion. However a huge amount of children born to Muslims apostatize, at least in the United States. The key is to continue to protect and ensure the rights of apostates and protect their ability to speak out.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 13, 2024, 06:44:13 PMNetanyahu really shouldn't have bombed the Iranian embassy. We are trying to keep the whole world from spiraling out of control and here he is throwing sticks into the spokes. Guy needs to go, now.
Yep.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 13, 2024, 07:07:57 PMThe West is dangerously close to a Chamberlain-esque appeasement story with Iran.
Ok first Iran poses zero threat to the West. They only pose a threat to our interests in the Middle East, interests which we are actively working to disentangle ourselves from. Not really a comparable situation. I don't think Iran is going to invade and conquer France and the low countries.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 13, 2024, 07:07:57 PMQuote from: Razgovory on April 13, 2024, 06:44:13 PMNetanyahu really shouldn't have bombed the Iranian embassy. We are trying to keep the whole world from spiraling out of control and here he is throwing sticks into the spokes. Guy needs to go, now.
I think this is a convenient and dumb take. I think any Israeli leader would have done that. Israel is basically fighting a two front war against Iranian proxies and Iran is shuttling top military leaders around countries like Lebanon and Syria to coordinate with those proxies.
Iran is the party escalating here, by being actively involved in Israel's war. I don't agree Israel was wrong to strike an Iranian military target that was actively working with Hezbollah. I similarly agreed with Trump killing Soleimani.
Treating Iran like they aren't to be trifled with due to fear of "regional conflict" whilst meanwhile letting them increase their bad behaviors is a failed Western strategy that has lead to Iran with 3 powerful and destabilizing proxies in the Middle East, and Iran close to developing a nuclear weapon.
The West is dangerously close to a Chamberlain-esque appeasement story with Iran.
You know that embassies and consulates are off limits. Assassinating Soleimani was also bad. We have rules.
I don't think Iran and Israel have diplomatic relations, so I don't think an embassy of Iran's in a 3rd country being used to participate in an ongoing war is off limits actually.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 13, 2024, 06:28:31 PMSeeing reports of Muslims in Toronto celebrating the Iranian strikes on Israel. Islam is a true cancer on the West. I hope its leaders wake up before it is too late—maybe the people will wake them up, since most of us do not want these people in our society.
Saw a video, didn't see viper there. I think it was suppose to be demanding a ceasefire...
:lol:
He lives a 1000 km from Toronto.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 13, 2024, 07:55:16 PMI don't think Iran and Israel have diplomatic relations, so I don't think an embassy of Iran's in a 3rd country being used to participate in an ongoing war is off limits actually.
I think this is probably right. Iran has to explain why the commander of the Quds Force was working out of purportedly civilian consulate. The NYT reported there was a meeting with Palestinian militants at the time of the strike, and the casualty reports from the Syrian side support that. Israel hitting inside Syria is a bit dodgy but the ultimate cause of the murky situation is Syria and Iran's mutual footsie with Hezbollah and allied militants.
Whether it justifiable is separate from the question of whether it was wise for Israel to escalate in a manner tending to widen the conflict. It only reinforces the problem inherent in keeping Bibi in as it is impossible to forget that he personally benefits from a longer and more intractable conflict.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 13, 2024, 08:56:03 PM:lol:
He lives a 1000 km from Toronto.
What is that like 40 miles?
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2024, 07:40:15 PMOk first Iran poses zero threat to the West. They only pose a threat to our interests in the Middle East, interests which we are actively working to disentangle ourselves from. Not really a comparable situation. I don't think Iran is going to invade and conquer France and the low countries.
But they can significantly impact shipping and oil/gas supplies. Maybe not to the US, but certainly to Europe.
Even if Israel was 100% certain this guy aiding terrorists was working in a consulate, bombing the consulate was still a dumb move.
Instantly destroys Israel being entirely legitimate in the killing and makes Iran the victim.
They should have took more of a PR focussed approach to show Iran were the ones breaking international law and if they really had to bomb something, hit the guy when he was out of the embassy or if the embassy itself was the issue warn about the incoming missile before hand.
Quote from: Josquius on April 14, 2024, 03:46:00 AMEven if Israel was 100% certain this guy aiding terrorists was working in a consulate, bombing the consulate was still a dumb move.
Instantly destroys Israel being entirely legitimate in the killing and makes Iran the victim.
They should have took more of a PR focussed approach to show Iran were the ones breaking international law and if they really had to bomb something, hit the guy when he was out of the embassy or if the embassy itself was the issue warn about the incoming missile before hand.
If you consider a Quds commander a victim you're probably a lost cause already and would have sided with Iran anyway.
The reaction to the assassination at the hospital in the West Bank is the best example of this. After months of criticizing the IDF for bombing instead of using spec ops, suddenly the usual suspects were all outraged when they actually did use spec ops.
Quote from: Iormlund on April 14, 2024, 04:31:41 AMQuote from: Josquius on April 14, 2024, 03:46:00 AMEven if Israel was 100% certain this guy aiding terrorists was working in a consulate, bombing the consulate was still a dumb move.
Instantly destroys Israel being entirely legitimate in the killing and makes Iran the victim.
They should have took more of a PR focussed approach to show Iran were the ones breaking international law and if they really had to bomb something, hit the guy when he was out of the embassy or if the embassy itself was the issue warn about the incoming missile before hand.
If you consider a Quds commander a victim you're probably a lost cause already and would have sided with Iran anyway.
.
He wasn't the only one in the embassy.
That's the point.
Its not the Israel is always wrong no matter what fringe who they have to win around. It's all the others they've been doing their best to alienate lately. A far more significant group which runs most of the west.
Well, nobody was hurt.
I think the sensible Israeli reaction would be "well we have proven Iran can't hurt us, we'll return to our regularly scheduled programming" and do not reply. Then again, I still think Bibi needs indefinite war and crisis to stay in power so there's probably going to be a counter-strike.
At least I hope they use the chance to take out either nuclear facilities or/and drone factories, the latter could benefit the war in Ukraine as well.
Quote from: Josquius on April 14, 2024, 05:55:00 AMIts not the Israel is always wrong no matter what fringe who they have to win around. It's all the others they've been doing their best to alienate lately. A far more significant group which runs most of the west.
I think even now most of the people "alienated" by Israel are in the first group. Let's not give cover to people who have finally found an accepted outlet to the bigotry they harbored all along.
Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2024, 09:33:41 AMQuote from: Josquius on April 14, 2024, 05:55:00 AMIts not the Israel is always wrong no matter what fringe who they have to win around. It's all the others they've been doing their best to alienate lately. A far more significant group which runs most of the west.
I think even now most of the people "alienated" by Israel are in the first group. Let's not give cover to people who have finally found an accepted outlet to the bigotry they harbored all along.
That's just daft.
It's perfectly possible to have criticisms of Israels current operations without being an anti semite.
No one says it isn't possible, what we are saying is we have eyes and ears. This war has green lit a massive wave of antisemitic bigotry in the West and it is quite obvious the mask is off for lots of people. It has shown us Palestinian Arabs can never be trusted as immigrants, they are forever committed to Islamic extremism. It has shown us many far lefties are antisemites.
Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2024, 09:33:41 AMQuote from: Josquius on April 14, 2024, 05:55:00 AMIts not the Israel is always wrong no matter what fringe who they have to win around. It's all the others they've been doing their best to alienate lately. A far more significant group which runs most of the west.
I think even now most of the people "alienated" by Israel are in the first group. Let's not give cover to people who have finally found an accepted outlet to the bigotry they harbored all along.
I think that a lot of leftwing people don't start out antisemitic, but move in that direction as a consequence of their activism. The Pro-Pal movement is a gateway to Jew-hate. I've also notice that the Pro-Pal movement has changed a lot in the last 20 years. They are much more hateful and accepting of violence then they were in the past. You just didn't see stuff things like this back then.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 14, 2024, 11:08:19 AMNo one says it isn't possible, what we are saying is we have eyes and ears. This war has green lit a massive wave of antisemitic bigotry in the West and it is quite obvious the mask is off for lots of people. It has shown us Palestinian Arabs can never be trusted as immigrants, they are forever committed to Islamic extremism. It has shown us many far lefties are antisemites.
There definitely has been an uptick in anti semitism.
There has also been a huge uptick in people labelling any criticism, or even just failure to support, as anti semitic lunacy in line with Islamic extremists.
Like most things Israel and Palestine whenever I read articles about anti semitic controversies these days it tends to be a real cunts on both sides issue that calls for slaps all round. It's simply cringe worthy.
I agree with that narrative Raz, I suspect very few left/progressives who become Pro-Pal activists start off antisemitic, but once you are in that culture it becomes part of the "language."
I think we have seen how common that language is with how Ilhan Omar got in trouble with some imprecise word usage about Jews a few years back, I strongly suspect she was clumsily using language that is likely very common among her circle, but that she likely understands isn't acceptable outside of it--but when you talk a certain way around your inner circle all the time it is unsurprising when you slip up and say it in public.
I saw a poll not long ago that in Britain, 65% of Muslims under age 25 believe Israel does not have the right to exist. This is much higher than was found for older groups, middle aged and older British Muslims held that view at around a 35-40% clip (still high), but to me it shows online rhetoric among young Palestinian activists has created a culture of acceptance of antisemitic phrases and rhetoric.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 14, 2024, 11:48:17 AMI agree with that narrative Raz, I suspect very few left/progressives who become Pro-Pal activists start off antisemitic, but once you are in that culture it becomes part of the "language."
Yep. Antisemites are very good at utilizing pro-Palestinians to advance antisemitic ideas.
Quote from: Josquius on April 14, 2024, 05:55:00 AMQuote from: Iormlund on April 14, 2024, 04:31:41 AMQuote from: Josquius on April 14, 2024, 03:46:00 AMEven if Israel was 100% certain this guy aiding terrorists was working in a consulate, bombing the consulate was still a dumb move.
Instantly destroys Israel being entirely legitimate in the killing and makes Iran the victim.
They should have took more of a PR focussed approach to show Iran were the ones breaking international law and if they really had to bomb something, hit the guy when he was out of the embassy or if the embassy itself was the issue warn about the incoming missile before hand.
If you consider a Quds commander a victim you're probably a lost cause already and would have sided with Iran anyway.
.
He wasn't the only one in the embassy.
That's the point.
The embassy building was not hit. The target was an annex being used by Iran and Hizbollah.
According to Syrian/Iranian sources, only two out of 16 fatalities were civilian. I doubt a (series of) strike(s) on the streets would have been as clean.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 14, 2024, 11:08:19 AMNo one says it isn't possible, what we are saying is we have eyes and ears. This war has green lit a massive wave of antisemitic bigotry in the West and it is quite obvious the mask is off for lots of people. It has shown us Palestinian Arabs can never be trusted as immigrants, they are forever committed to Islamic extremism. It has shown us many far lefties are antisemites.
Really not one of you took issue with anything Otto said. Some of you even tacitly agreed with him that no Palestinians can be trusted.
This is disgusting and I won't be part of this group any longer.
Quote from: HVC on April 13, 2024, 06:39:26 PMI think both sides will just lob a few bombs. Both leaders look good to their people. Civilians will die, but neither seem to care. Won't escalate beyond that. I freely admit I could be way, way off
This is the likely scenario.
If Iran had wanted to really hurt Israel, they would not have warned them in advance of the attack, and they would not have used drones launching from Iran that take 7-8 hours to reach their target and a few easy to shoot down ballistic missiles announced on public television, again, all easy to intercept by US forces in the area and current Israel's defence capabilities.
Iran does not want to suffer a regime change, so they won't go all in on Israel, but they had to strike back after Israel bomb their embassy.
Both ends of the political spectrum will tacitly approve antisemitism. Hate is a good motivator and they are a small enough minority that it is a safe bet.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2024, 12:57:59 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 14, 2024, 11:08:19 AMNo one says it isn't possible, what we are saying is we have eyes and ears. This war has green lit a massive wave of antisemitic bigotry in the West and it is quite obvious the mask is off for lots of people. It has shown us Palestinian Arabs can never be trusted as immigrants, they are forever committed to Islamic extremism. It has shown us many far lefties are antisemites.
Really not one of you took issue with anything Otto said. Some of you even tacitly agreed with him that no Palestinians can be trusted.
This is disgusting and I won't be part of this group any longer.
Nobody agreed with Otto here. :rolleyes: In fact, I like the Palestinians here better than over there. It's kinda like Irish immigrants, they hated the UK so much they were constantly agitating for war against Britain in the 19th century. Hell, they even attacked, well, YOU. It's just something we have to put up with for now. Eventually they'll get it out of their blood.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2024, 12:57:59 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 14, 2024, 11:08:19 AMNo one says it isn't possible, what we are saying is we have eyes and ears. This war has green lit a massive wave of antisemitic bigotry in the West and it is quite obvious the mask is off for lots of people. It has shown us Palestinian Arabs can never be trusted as immigrants, they are forever committed to Islamic extremism. It has shown us many far lefties are antisemites.
Really not one of you took issue with anything Otto said. Some of you even tacitly agreed with him that no Palestinians can be trusted.
This is disgusting and I won't be part of this group any longer.
Spare me the histrionics and fuck off. I don't read every fucking message.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 13, 2024, 11:50:47 PMI think this is probably right. Iran has to explain why the commander of the Quds Force was working out of purportedly civilian consulate. The NYT reported there was a meeting with Palestinian militants at the time of the strike, and the casualty reports from the Syrian side support that. Israel hitting inside Syria is a bit dodgy but the ultimate cause of the murky situation is Syria and Iran's mutual footsie with Hezbollah and allied militants.
I don't think that Iran is obligated to explain to the international community the movements and intentions of its military members any more than the US is. There is no such thing as a "civilian consulate" (or embassy). Consulates and embassies are the sovereign territory of their accredited home countries, and pretty much every country has military members of its diplomatic missions.
Bombing the embassies of hostile countries in third nations is not in accordance with international law and sends a message of lack of respect for international norms. It's worse than a crime: it's a mistake.
Quote from: Josquius on April 14, 2024, 03:46:00 AMEven if Israel was 100% certain this guy aiding terrorists was working in a consulate, bombing the consulate was still a dumb move.
Instantly destroys Israel being entirely legitimate in the killing and makes Iran the victim.
They should have took more of a PR focussed approach to show Iran were the ones breaking international law and if they really had to bomb something, hit the guy when he was out of the embassy or if the embassy itself was the issue warn about the incoming missile before hand.
What international law or laws is Iran breaking?
It could be a mistake, but it isn't a crime. When a country is conducting military operations against another country from an embassy, it has no legal protections.
The most obvious mistake is Iran getting too directly involved in its proxy's wars with Israel and using its overseas diplomatic buildings as active command centers in an ongoing conflict that it claims it does not wish to be a participant in.
Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2024, 02:25:24 PMConsulates and embassies are the sovereign territory of their accredited home countries
Are they? Or are they just commonly believed to be?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 14, 2024, 02:48:23 PMIt could be a mistake, but it isn't a crime. When a country is conducting military operations against another country from an embassy, it has no legal protections.
The most obvious mistake is Iran getting too directly involved in its proxy's wars with Israel and using its overseas diplomatic buildings as active command centers in an ongoing conflict that it claims it does not wish to be a participant in.
You can plan anything you want or meet anyone you want in an embassy. Unless they were actively shooting stuff out of the consulate windows they weren't conducting military operations.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 14, 2024, 03:30:31 PMYou can plan anything you want or meet anyone you want in an embassy. Unless they were actively shooting stuff out of the consulate windows they weren't conducting military operations.
That's a weird take. So you aren't supposed to target an enemy command and control center or ammunition depot?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 14, 2024, 03:30:31 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 14, 2024, 02:48:23 PMIt could be a mistake, but it isn't a crime. When a country is conducting military operations against another country from an embassy, it has no legal protections.
The most obvious mistake is Iran getting too directly involved in its proxy's wars with Israel and using its overseas diplomatic buildings as active command centers in an ongoing conflict that it claims it does not wish to be a participant in.
You can plan anything you want or meet anyone you want in an embassy. Unless they were actively shooting stuff out of the consulate windows they weren't conducting military operations.
That isn't how it works. Generals in their HQs have always been valid targets. High level officers and military planners are not noncombatants, their weapons just aren't wielded as a personal firearm.
Quote from: Iormlund on April 14, 2024, 04:51:14 PMQuote from: Razgovory on April 14, 2024, 03:30:31 PMYou can plan anything you want or meet anyone you want in an embassy. Unless they were actively shooting stuff out of the consulate windows they weren't conducting military operations.
That's a weird take. So you aren't supposed to target an enemy command and control center or ammunition depot?
Not if it's in a third party country or an embassy. I do doubt that it was a enemy command and control center or an ammunition depot. So far the reports are simply that Iranian military met with Palestinian militants in the building. That's not the same as a command and control center.
I have no proof of this, but I bet the US has met with Ukrainian soldiers in our embassy in Ukraine and we would be well within our rights to complain if the Russians just blew it up. I suspect the US, France and Britain have coordinated with militaries and militants in embassies and consulates in the past.
Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2024, 02:25:24 PMI don't think that Iran is obligated to explain to the international community the movements and intentions of its military members any more than the US is. There is no such thing as a "civilian consulate" (or embassy). Consulates and embassies are the sovereign territory of their accredited home countries, and pretty much every country has military members of its diplomatic missions.
Bombing the embassies of hostile countries in third nations is not in accordance with international law and sends a message of lack of respect for international norms.
Hezbollah is currently at war with Israel; they are exchanging live fire. Zahedi gave direction and support to Hezbollah; he was a legitimate combatant and target. At the time of the strike he was reportedly meeting with other Hezbollah and Palestinian militants. If Iran chooses to allow such people to shelter in a consular building, it is on them for putting the consulate at risk.
Embassies and consulates are protected under international law from hostile acts by the host country, but the host in this case is Syria not Israel. In wartime, I'm not aware of any international law that prevents a country from striking hostile forces that locate themselves in a foreign consulate. I suppose one could argue that Israel should not be striking targets in Syria, although Syria's clear role in sponsoring and directing Hezbollah undermines that claim.
QuoteIt's worse than a crime: it's a mistake.
Well yeah I agree with that.
Russia and America have diplomatic relations, so that situation is not directly comparable. AFAIK Iran and Israel basically don't have any diplo relation at all, no mutual embassies, no formal diplomatic recognition etc.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 14, 2024, 10:24:06 PMRussia and America have diplomatic relations, so that situation is not directly comparable. AFAIK Iran and Israel basically don't have any diplo relation at all, no mutual embassies, no formal diplomatic recognition etc.
Not to mention that Russia refrains from such attacks not out of concern for international law or any norms about inviolability of embassies. They do so out of fear of the consequences.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 14, 2024, 10:23:55 PMHezbollah is currently at war with Israel; they are exchanging live fire. Zahedi gave direction and support to Hezbollah; he was a legitimate combatant and target. At the time of the strike he was reportedly meeting with other Hezbollah and Palestinian militants. If Iran chooses to allow such people to shelter in a consular building, it is on them for putting the consulate at risk.
So if the Russians bomb the US embassy in Warsaw to kill the US military attaché there who is providing direction and support to the shipment of US arms to Ukraine, you'd be okay with that?
QuoteEmbassies and consulates are protected under international law from hostile acts by the host country, but the host in this case is Syria not Israel. In wartime, I'm not aware of any international law that prevents a country from striking hostile forces that locate themselves in a foreign consulate. I suppose one could argue that Israel should not be striking targets in Syria, although Syria's clear role in sponsoring and directing Hezbollah undermines that claim.
Embassies and consulates are protected by diplomatic immunity against even countries at war, though the personnel can be declared non grata and forced to leave. The revocation of immunity and sovereignty for the embassy itself has to be carried out in writing and must allow time for the original owner to evacuate its property. The Germans did not bomb Allied embassies in, say, Switzerland during WW2 because that would have been a breach of international law.
The Germans in WW2 also didn't have the means to bomb embassies in neutral countries without doing enough damage to the surrounding cities to force said neutrals into the war.
Also I never see demands for Hezbollah and Iran to adhere to the rules of war and while I understand that is largely due to racism, I still am not sure why one side respect a set of rules the other is purposefully ignoring.
Quote from: Tamas on April 15, 2024, 02:48:52 AMThe Germans in WW2 also didn't have the means to bomb embassies in neutral countries without doing enough damage to the surrounding cities to force said neutrals into the war.
Also I never see demands for Hezbollah and Iran to adhere to the rules of war and while I understand that is largely due to racism, I still am not sure why one side respect a set of rules the other is purposefully ignoring.
:blink:
Racism?
Kind of obvious why the western democracy is held to higher standards than terrorists.
For Iran...well they are expected to behave themselves and that they don't is key to why they're prominent members of the global shit list.
The level of respect is reciprocated.
With WW2 it wasn't just a lack of decent bombing abilities that were behind it.
1: There's been plenty of later wars where the technology was available when embassies weren't hit. This just isn't the accepted way for countries to behave.
2: If we're going with WW2, the Germans had plenty of sympathisers in Switzerland. Swap out "bomb the British/Polish/Soviet(?) embassy" for just torching it through other means. Yet they didn't nor did they even plan to do so. Its fundamentally against the rules of diplomacy.
Committing genocide across Europe 'isn't the accepted way for countries to behave'. :mellow:
Quote from: garbon on April 15, 2024, 03:17:17 AMCommitting genocide across Europe 'isn't the accepted way for countries to behave'. :mellow:
You think?
Quote from: Josquius on April 15, 2024, 03:13:54 AM:blink:
Racism?
Kind of obvious why the western democracy is held to higher standards than terrorists.
Why Iranians cannot be expected to create a government that adheres to standards we take as granted/mandatory from Israelis? What quality is it they are lacking? Why Palestinians cannot be expected to fight for their goals without terrorism if we expect Israelis to refrain from it? What is it they are lacking? If they lack nothing, they can be held to the same standard.
Quote from: Tamas on April 15, 2024, 03:55:19 AMQuote from: Josquius on April 15, 2024, 03:13:54 AM:blink:
Racism?
Kind of obvious why the western democracy is held to higher standards than terrorists.
Why Iranians cannot be expected to create a government that adheres to standards we take as granted/mandatory from Israelis? What quality is it they are lacking? Why Palestinians cannot be expected to fight for their goals without terrorism if we expect Israelis to refrain from it? What is it they are lacking? If they lack nothing, they can be held to the same standard.
They are expected to follow internationally expected rules.
That they don't is key to why they're a heavily sanctioned axis of evil pariah nation.
Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2024, 11:19:20 PMSo if the Russians bomb the US embassy in Warsaw to kill the US military attaché there who is providing direction and support to the shipment of US arms to Ukraine, you'd be okay with that?
No I wouldn't be OK with that; I'd expect the US to retaliate, just as Iran did (tried to do). Of course, the US retaliation would be more effective, which is a big reason why the Russians won't do it. Putin certainly isn't restrained by international law or norms; if he was, his troops wouldn't be in Ukraine in the first place.
That's not to say I accept the analogy. Russia is not at war with Poland as Israel is de facto and de jure with Syria. The US and Poland are giving arms and support to Ukraine, but they are not directing and operating paramilitary forces against Russian civilian targets.
QuoteEmbassies and consulates are protected by diplomatic immunity against even countries at war, though the personnel can be declared non grata and forced to leave. The revocation of immunity and sovereignty for the embassy itself has to be carried out in writing and must allow time for the original owner to evacuate its property. The Germans did not bomb Allied embassies in, say, Switzerland during WW2 because that would have been a breach of international law.
The first two sentences arefully consistent with what I said, as it addresses the duties of host countries towards foreign embassies on their soil. No question that if Iran had a consulate in Israel, that attack would be illegal. As to the last sentence, Germany was never at war with Switzerland and sought to keep good relations with the Swiss during the war. Had the Swiss and the British been openly running anti-Nazi militias, I doubt the Germans would have have hesitated to act. When the British and US bombed Germany I am not aware of any steps taken to protect foreign embassies still accredited with the Nazi regime. When the Americans firebombed Tokyo, they made no efforts to avoid damage to the German embassy, even though at the time of the strike the US was no longer at war with Germany.
Quote from: Tamas on April 15, 2024, 02:48:52 AMAlso I never see demands for Hezbollah and Iran to adhere to the rules of war and while I understand that is largely due to racism, I still am not sure why one side respect a set of rules the other is purposefully ignoring.
Your failure to see the demands doesn't mean that they do not exist, just that you fail to see them, e.g.
QuoteThomas-Greenfield lashed out at Iran for supplying advanced weapons systems to the Houthis in violation of U.N. sanctions including drones, land attack cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles, which she said have all been used in attacks on vessels.
AP story from January (https://apnews.com/article/un-yemen-houthis-shipping-red-sea-resolution-attacks-f26262fe055c8a1e39dee0c3c0d6f7f6)
Hezbollah is a criminal organization, so there's no expectation that they will follow international (or any other) law.
There are two contexts where diplo facilities are protected.
One is the obvious host country relationship, under the Vienna Treaty and long standing international norms, if you are a host country, you don't get to touch militarily anything in an accredited country's diplomatic mission with force. The proper way under this regime to deal with them if you don't want them there, is to formally expel all their diplomatic staff and tell them they have to close their embassy down (effectively severing diplomatic relations), but they would have to be given a reasonable time to do so.
This has actually recently been violated, as an example, in Ecuador, with Ecuadoran police storming a Mexican Embassy in Ecuador, and has caused major diplomatic backlash throughout the Western Hemisphere.
The other context is if Country A is at war either with or in Country B, but has no such state with countries that have embassies in Country A or B. In that case, it would be a violation of norms for Country A to attack diplomatic facilities of Country C, if Country C is a neutral third party.
An example of this would be the American bombing campaign in the Balkans in the 1990s, that resulted in a Chinese diplomatic building being leveled. This was a mistake for which America apologized, but the Chinese were incensed about it nonetheless.
The example of Israel bombing an Iranian Embassy in Syria fails to meet either of these criteria for a number of reasons:
1. Obviously, Israel is not the host country of any of these facilities.
2. Israel and Syria, as I understand it, have been legally at war since 1948. They have never signed a peace treaty, and they to this day have no formal diplomatic relations.
3. Israel and Iran, while not formally at war like Israel and Syria, have not had diplomatic relations since the Iranian Revolution. Further, by all accounts they are in a "state of war", without war being declared. Iran has used facilities in Syria (a country Israel is at war with) to coordinate and launch attacks at Israel through Hezbollah.
Iran has no expectation of any of its facilities in Syria that are being used in a hostile way to enjoy any form of diplomatic protection from the IDF.
Something that needs to be said, since we glossed over it a bit to engage in arguing about minutiae of Iran's embassy being bombed (which is largely not actually very important), is the reason we in the West cannot trust "Palestinians", is because Palestinian is not a "natural" ethnic group.
Ethnic groups form over things like shared language, culture etc. The concept of a Palestinian nation exists and was created solely as a "negative nationalism", it is a concept that exists because Arabs don't view it as acceptable for Jews to have land and a country of their own. By its nature, identification as a Palestinian is membership in a group that exists solely as a negation of Israel.
If for whatever reason, a Jewish state had never been carved out of British Mandatory Palestine, if for example the Arabs won their initial war (which a large % of the posters in this thread would have preferred, and would likely gloss over or ignore the ensuing mass murder of Jews that would have occurred), there likely would not be a country called "Palestine" in that region. It would likely just be part of Jordan, and the Arabs living there would have no issue with that--because they were never "Palestinians", they were Arabs.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 15, 2024, 07:30:20 AMNo I wouldn't be OK with that; I'd expect the US to retaliate, just as Iran did (tried to do). Of course, the US retaliation would be more effective, which is a big reason why the Russians won't do it. Putin certainly isn't restrained by international law or norms; if he was, his troops wouldn't be in Ukraine in the first place.
But if your earlier contention is correct, you are okay (under international law) with Russia attacking that US embassy, and you believe that such attacks should only be constrained by fear of retaliation?
QuoteThat's not to say I accept the analogy. Russia is not at war with Poland as Israel is de facto and de jure with Syria. The US and Poland are giving arms and support to Ukraine, but they are not directing and operating paramilitary forces against Russian civilian targets.
Israel's state of war with Syria has nothing to do with Israel's bombing of sovereign Iranian territory. If Israel wants to declare war on Iran and state that the Iranian use of the embassy in Damascus is perfidy, then they'd be in the right and could launch such an attack after giving notice. This isn't 'Nam. There are rules.
QuoteThe first two sentences arefully consistent with what I said, as it addresses the duties of host countries towards foreign embassies on their soil. No question that if Iran had a consulate in Israel, that attack would be illegal. As to the last sentence, Germany was never at war with Switzerland and sought to keep good relations with the Swiss during the war. Had the Swiss and the British been openly running anti-Nazi militias, I doubt the Germans would have have hesitated to act. When the British and US bombed Germany I am not aware of any steps taken to protect foreign embassies still accredited with the Nazi regime. When the Americans firebombed Tokyo, they made no efforts to avoid damage to the German embassy, even though at the time of the strike the US was no longer at war with Germany.
The obligation to respect the diplomatic immunity of nations one is not at war with is not just an obligation of the host country towards credentialed foreign diplomatic staff and facilities, it is a general obligation. The Russians could not take into custody a US diplomat credentialed to japan traveling in a passenger jet forced by emergency to land in Russia, for instance.
The German embassy in Tokyo analogy is a particularly bizarre one because there was not German embassy in Japan after May 7, 1945, nor was there even a Germany to have such an embassy. Some of the other embassies in Japan were destroyed in the bombing by the Americans, but none were targeted and, insofar as I am aware, no diplomatic staff were casualties. There were only six neutral-nation embassies in Japan in any case: Switzerland, Sweden, Portugal, the Vatican, Ireland, and Afghanistan. MOFA history (https://www.jacar.go.jp/english/glossary_en/tochikiko-henten/column/column2.html)
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2024, 09:11:52 AMIsrael's state of war with Syria has nothing to do with Israel's bombing of sovereign Iranian territory. If Israel wants to declare war on Iran and state that the Iranian use of the embassy in Damascus is perfidy, then they'd be in the right and could launch such an attack after giving notice. This isn't 'Nam. There are rules.
If Iran wants to declare war on Israel and assert that it is legitimate to use diplomatic buildings in Syria to conduct military operations against Israel, then they could do so. There are rules. When you just attack without declaring war you are essentially waging an undeclared war, you cannot then pretend you are protected by a peaceful status.
There are literally no rules covering this situation, you are largely talking out of your ass on this one. Israel's bombings of military facilities in Syria is covered as legitimate by their existing war with Syria and due to Iran engaging in active hostilities.
Also unequivocally--Russia targeting NATO advisors etc in Ukraine is entirely valid. It would just be unwise. Those are different questions.
Basically the argument comes down to whether it is permissible for Israel to strike Iranian sovereign territory despite the lack of a formally declared war. It is not a black and white situation, but the law of war permits such attacks for pre-emptive defensive purposes if there is imminent danger. That was the justification for the US attack vs Qassem Soleimani, which occurred on Iraqi sovereign territory. The Israeli strike appears to have a stronger justification as the imminence of the threat to Israel was greater and more direct than that posed by Soleimani to the US, and it appears that Zahedi was meeting at the time specifically for purposes related to the ongoing war of Hezbollah vs Israel, as opposed to Soleimani who at the time of his killing was delivering a diplomatic message from the Iranian government to Iraq's PM.
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2024, 09:11:52 AMThe Russians could not take into custody a US diplomat credentialed to japan traveling in a passenger jet forced by emergency to land in Russia, for instance.
Correct, that would violate the Vienna Convention which requires countries to respect the inviolability of diplomatic personnel in transit through their country. But Zahedi was not in transit through Israel. I don't know if he was an accredited diplomatic agent either.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 15, 2024, 09:04:43 AMSomething that needs to be said, since we glossed over it a bit to engage in arguing about minutiae of Iran's embassy being bombed (which is largely not actually very important), is the reason we in the West cannot trust "Palestinians", is because Palestinian is not a "natural" ethnic group.
Ethnic groups form over things like shared language, culture etc. The concept of a Palestinian nation exists and was created solely as a "negative nationalism", it is a concept that exists because Arabs don't view it as acceptable for Jews to have land and a country of their own. By its nature, identification as a Palestinian is membership in a group that exists solely as a negation of Israel.
If for whatever reason, a Jewish state had never been carved out of British Mandatory Palestine, if for example the Arabs won their initial war (which a large % of the posters in this thread would have preferred, and would likely gloss over or ignore the ensuing mass murder of Jews that would have occurred), there likely would not be a country called "Palestine" in that region. It would likely just be part of Jordan, and the Arabs living there would have no issue with that--because they were never "Palestinians", they were Arabs.
yeah, that's all true. Although by that argument, you can also say, there are no Egyptians or Jordanians, they are all ethnic Arabs.
So what you have is a group of displaced Arabs in Eretz Israel looking for a home. One they would call Palestine. So for convenience sake, they identify as Palestinians.
In an ideal world, the remaining Arabs in Eretz Israel would be taken in by the neighbouring Arab states, become Jordanian and Egyptian and the problem would be solved. But that would never fly because there is a segment of the Arab population who don't recognize a Jewish state, and doing this would remove their raison d'etre.
Israel could also return to the pre-1967 border but that would also never fly.
And so that's why we are where we are.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 15, 2024, 10:43:17 AMCorrect, that would violate the Vienna Convention which requires countries to respect the inviolability of diplomatic personnel in transit through their country. But Zahedi was not in transit through Israel. I don't know if he was an accredited diplomatic agent either.
Correct. The inviolability of diplomatic missions and personnel extends beyond the borders of the sending and receiving nations. Zahedi was in an accredited mission which was itself inviolate except in cases of war (and even then still protected but not inviolate).
Egyptians are a bit of an outlier though, they do sort of identify Egyptian as their ethnic group and view it as distinct from "Arab", they consider themselves to be Arabic speakers but not Arabs. Sort of like Scots / Welsh / Irish speak English but don't consider themselves English.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 15, 2024, 09:04:43 AMSomething that needs to be said, since we glossed over it a bit to engage in arguing about minutiae of Iran's embassy being bombed (which is largely not actually very important), is the reason we in the West cannot trust "Palestinians", is because Palestinian is not a "natural" ethnic group.
Ethnic groups form over things like shared language, culture etc. The concept of a Palestinian nation exists and was created solely as a "negative nationalism", it is a concept that exists because Arabs don't view it as acceptable for Jews to have land and a country of their own. By its nature, identification as a Palestinian is membership in a group that exists solely as a negation of Israel.
If for whatever reason, a Jewish state had never been carved out of British Mandatory Palestine, if for example the Arabs won their initial war (which a large % of the posters in this thread would have preferred, and would likely gloss over or ignore the ensuing mass murder of Jews that would have occurred), there likely would not be a country called "Palestine" in that region. It would likely just be part of Jordan, and the Arabs living there would have no issue with that--because they were never "Palestinians", they were Arabs.
See also top 10 examples of clichéd Israeli extremist propeganda.
1: There's far more nations in the world born out of this "negative nationalism" than the more "positive" (not really) sort of Europe.
2: Palestine as a place and the Palestinians as from there long predates zionism.
The Palestinians are just Jordanians thus ethnic cleansing is fine stuff is such weakly masked fascist bollocks. Wrong on so many levels.
Under Ottoman rule the Arabs were tribal but mostly desired to establish a nation-state called Arabia and that was the basis of the 1916 "Great Revolt." The future colonizers of the region, the UK and France, worked to ensure that tribal and ethnic differences would doom any such attempt and allow the colonizers to play different Arab groups against one another; classic "divide and conquer." The Palestinian identity dates from that period, as does the Saudi identity, Syrian, etc. "Palestinians" exist as a distinct nationality as much as the Syrians, Iraqis, Omanis, and whatnot.
Syria and Iraq might not be the best examples of a matured national identity.
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2024, 01:07:47 PMUnder Ottoman rule the Arabs were tribal but mostly desired to establish a nation-state called Arabia and that was the basis of the 1916 "Great Revolt." The future colonizers of the region, the UK and France, worked to ensure that tribal and ethnic differences would doom any such attempt and allow the colonizers to play different Arab groups against one another; classic "divide and conquer." The Palestinian identity dates from that period, as does the Saudi identity, Syrian, etc. "Palestinians" exist as a distinct nationality as much as the Syrians, Iraqis, Omanis, and whatnot.
No one considers Syrian / Jordanian / Iraqi etc ethnicities today, more emphasizing my point. They are viewed as majority Arab countries (with a few outlier minority groups.) Pretty infamously all of these countries still have strong tribal / clan affiliations and weak affiliation with their state identifier.
Quote from: Tamas on April 15, 2024, 01:32:57 PMSyria and Iraq might not be the best examples of a matured national identity.
True, but no one argues that Syria does not exist, as OvB does for Palestine.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 15, 2024, 09:04:43 AMSomething that needs to be said, since we glossed over it a bit to engage in arguing about minutiae of Iran's embassy being bombed (which is largely not actually very important), is the reason we in the West cannot trust "Palestinians", is because Palestinian is not a "natural" ethnic group.
Ethnic groups form over things like shared language, culture etc. The concept of a Palestinian nation exists and was created solely as a "negative nationalism", it is a concept that exists because Arabs don't view it as acceptable for Jews to have land and a country of their own. By its nature, identification as a Palestinian is membership in a group that exists solely as a negation of Israel.
If for whatever reason, a Jewish state had never been carved out of British Mandatory Palestine, if for example the Arabs won their initial war (which a large % of the posters in this thread would have preferred, and would likely gloss over or ignore the ensuing mass murder of Jews that would have occurred), there likely would not be a country called "Palestine" in that region. It would likely just be part of Jordan, and the Arabs living there would have no issue with that--because they were never "Palestinians", they were Arabs.
OK, so I'm pretty damn pro-Israeli, but I hate this argument.
First of all it's the exact same point that's being used, right now, in Ukraine - that Ukrainians aren't a "real" ethnicity - they're just Russians with a funny accent (despite the fact Ukrainian and Russian are quite distinct languages that aren't mutually intelligible except for the fact that many/most Ukrainians know Russian).
But that same argument can be used against many other countries as well. What makes Austria a real country - they speak German after all. What about the numerous English speaking countries around the world? Why is Belgium a country - they just speak French and Dutch? or on the other side - why is "India" considered a country despite its large number of languages spoken?
The thing is -that for a variety of factors there are several million people who identify as being "Palestinians". Not Jordanians, or Egyptians, or "Arabians", and certainly not as Israelis. And that's good enough for me.
What you do about the Palestinians is a complicated question, which is why it hasn't been solved in the last 75+ years. But you can't deny their existence.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 15, 2024, 01:44:17 PMQuote from: grumbler on April 15, 2024, 01:07:47 PMUnder Ottoman rule the Arabs were tribal but mostly desired to establish a nation-state called Arabia and that was the basis of the 1916 "Great Revolt." The future colonizers of the region, the UK and France, worked to ensure that tribal and ethnic differences would doom any such attempt and allow the colonizers to play different Arab groups against one another; classic "divide and conquer." The Palestinian identity dates from that period, as does the Saudi identity, Syrian, etc. "Palestinians" exist as a distinct nationality as much as the Syrians, Iraqis, Omanis, and whatnot.
No one considers Syrian / Jordanian / Iraqi etc ethnicities today, more emphasizing my point. They are viewed as majority Arab countries (with a few outlier minority groups.) Pretty infamously all of these countries still have strong tribal / clan affiliations and weak affiliation with their state identifier.
Ethnicity isn't the same as nationality though.
If you ask your typical Syrian / Jordanian / Iraqi what their "identity" is, they will say Syrian, Jordanian, Iraqi.
Now you can throw in the Kurds or course, who do have asperations of their own nation, and who do identify as "Kurdish", but I don't think that takes away from the larger point. Iraq is a nation divided between different religious faiths and different tribal identities - but except for the Kurds they all identify as being Iraqi.
There's a massive difference between Ukrainian vs Russian. Ukrainian cultural identity in some forms is pushing 1000 years old as distinct from Russia. Vs Arab has been seen as a unified cultural identity that is not fragmented along the lines of British/French map drawers (whether it is an ethnic identity is more complex, as a number of Arab speaking peoples identify with the concept of a shared Arab culture but don't view themselves as being the same ethnicity--commonly this stance is found among North Africans and Egyptians.)
Arabs largely rejected the idea that their British/French drawn states defined their cultural identity back when it was partitioned, and I would argue the vast majority of the Arab world views itself as "Arab." It is really only the Palestinians who push the idea they are their own separate thing, but they also only push it in the sense that it serves them. In other contexts they identify as Arabs.
The duplicity on this topic is pretty severe--because their position looks a lot worse if you realize it is "Arabs being mad that instead of getting control of 100% of territory they want, they only got 95%."
Quote from: Barrister on April 15, 2024, 01:55:39 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 15, 2024, 09:04:43 AMSomething that needs to be said, since we glossed over it a bit to engage in arguing about minutiae of Iran's embassy being bombed (which is largely not actually very important), is the reason we in the West cannot trust "Palestinians", is because Palestinian is not a "natural" ethnic group.
Ethnic groups form over things like shared language, culture etc. The concept of a Palestinian nation exists and was created solely as a "negative nationalism", it is a concept that exists because Arabs don't view it as acceptable for Jews to have land and a country of their own. By its nature, identification as a Palestinian is membership in a group that exists solely as a negation of Israel.
If for whatever reason, a Jewish state had never been carved out of British Mandatory Palestine, if for example the Arabs won their initial war (which a large % of the posters in this thread would have preferred, and would likely gloss over or ignore the ensuing mass murder of Jews that would have occurred), there likely would not be a country called "Palestine" in that region. It would likely just be part of Jordan, and the Arabs living there would have no issue with that--because they were never "Palestinians", they were Arabs.
OK, so I'm pretty damn pro-Israeli, but I hate this argument.
First of all it's the exact same point that's being used, right now, in Ukraine - that Ukrainians aren't a "real" ethnicity - they're just Russians with a funny accent (despite the fact Ukrainian and Russian are quite distinct languages that aren't mutually intelligible except for the fact that many/most Ukrainians know Russian).
The language one is a rubbish one to go with really as just what is a language and a dialect (army and navy excepted).
Ukrainian and Russian are different languages and not mutually intelligible, the ones with the less prestigious version know "standard" as well as their local variety... But then you could say the same of English and many of its dialects.
A language being a language hasnt too much to do with intellgibility.
Then again if it is a factor then if we're talking about Arabic....
QuoteBut that same argument can be used against many other countries as well. What makes Austria a real country - they speak German after all. What about the numerous English speaking countries around the world? Why is Belgium a country - they just speak French and Dutch? or on the other side - why is "India" considered a country despite its large number of languages spoken?
The thing is -that for a variety of factors there are several million people who identify as being "Palestinians". Not Jordanians, or Egyptians, or "Arabians", and certainly not as Israelis. And that's good enough for me.
What you do about the Palestinians is a complicated question, which is why it hasn't been solved in the last 75+ years. But you can't deny their existence.
Also the whole thing that being a unique "people" is somehow all that matters.
It's basically like saying Russia annexing everything east of the Dnipro is totally fine since the Ukrainians have a nation - the land west of the river.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 15, 2024, 02:05:01 PMThere's a massive difference between Ukrainian vs Russian. Ukrainian cultural identity in some forms is pushing 1000 years old as distinct from Russia. Vs Arab has been seen as a unified cultural identity that is not fragmented along the lines of British/French map drawers (whether it is an ethnic identity is more complex, as a number of Arab speaking peoples identify with the concept of a shared Arab culture but don't view themselves as being the same ethnicity--commonly this stance is found among North Africans and Egyptians.)
Arabs largely rejected the idea that their British/French drawn states defined their cultural identity back when it was partitioned, and I would argue the vast majority of the Arab world views itself as "Arab." It is really only the Palestinians who push the idea they are their own separate thing, but they also only push it in the sense that it serves them. In other contexts they identify as Arabs.
The duplicity on this topic is pretty severe--because their position looks a lot worse if you realize it is "Arabs being mad that instead of getting control of 100% of territory they want, they only got 95%."
The thing is the split between Ukrainian and Russian identity isn't 1000 years old. 1000 years ago Kiyevan Rus had just adopted Christianity, Moscow didn't even exist.
The idea of Ukrainian nationality really only started to emerge more in the 1600s - it was this large area of largely orthodox believers that was ruled by Poland-Lithuania, and developed it's own distinct identity from there (while Moscow developed it's identity from being ruled by the Mongols).
But that's kind of my point - you don't have to have some 1000 year old history to be a nation.
As for the arabs - yes there was a movement for pan-arabism. That was in part (although not exclusively) supported by the good ole Ba'ath Party, and led to the short-lived United Arab Republic uniting Egypt and Syria.
But that's all like 50 years ago or more. Nobody is supporting pan arabism anymore. The people or arab heritage I know all identify as Lebanese, or Egyptian (or Palestinian) - not "arab".
Random analysis seen online I broadly agree with. Though it does neglect irans ship seizure.
That seems to have dissapeared from the news.
QuoteWHERE DOES ISRAEL GO FROM HERE?
The Israelis are being asked by their allies to accept two things. Firstly Iran means what it says and considers the spat over the attack on its embassy (and it was their embassy despite Israel claiming it wasn't), and their riposte, closed. Eye for an eye, Iran thinks it's made its point.
Secondly the allies are framing the defeat of the attack - which it has to be said was a spectacular technical feat that has shattered the illusion of the impossibility of missile and drone defence as viable for good, as a victory of the first magnitude. Iran's attack was wiped out.
Take it, is the advice and move on. Israel won and Iran's military has seen that any attack would require vastly more than they attempted, to stand even a mediocre chance of success. It's redressed the balance of power. Israel appears invulnerable and Iran most certainly isn't anywhere near it. I suspect there are questions being asked in Tehran about how such a huge attack resulted in nothing of any importance.
Yet this apparent invulnerability is dangerous. The Israelis, especially under their current leadership, which is the more extreme end of the spectrum, may see it as the ultimate opportunity to strike Iran, knowing full well Iran doesn't have an effective means of retaliation.
Iran revealed its hand. No doubt buoyed by the success of the drone and missile war in Ukraine, it overestimated its capabilities against a very different enemy, and it proved wanting. Its strategic capabilities against Israel were nothing like as effective as they'd assumed. In fact they were to be blunt, useless.
One could argue that Israel, if it took the high road here, now has the opportunity to end the Gaza conflict with all of the cards in its favour. Hezbollah in Lebanon aren't stupid and they will see the failure of their paymasters in Tehran to even dent Israel's defences as humiliating.
Israel has an opportunity to win right across the board. They were attacked, they won a spectacular victory. Gaza will never be the same again either. There's an opportunity to end the cycle of violence and bloodshed.
The question is can Israel rise to the occasion?
Netanyahu is motivated by staying in power. It's the only thing keeping him out of court and a potential prison sentence for corruption. Opposition to the endless and brutal conflict internally is rising. Few Israelis sympathise with the Palestinian cause but enough know it's gone too far to carry on as it is.
Israel and its foes know they have western backing, but only so far.
Crucially President Biden made it clear that any attack on Iran wouldn't be aided by the US in any way. Iran has only one target Israel really wants - the nuclear program - and it can't get at that without American support, political and military.
The ball is now firmly in Israel's court. It has crushed Hamas, Hezbollah is in no position to press its cause, and Iran has seen its military assault defeated in humiliating circumstances that have rendered it near impotent against Israel.
This is not the time to seize the military advantage. There isn't one.
I suspect that's part of the problem. Israel is dominant. They can start to dictate from a position of strength if they can just be a little humble and conciliatory.
The trouble is, that's not the way the current government thinks. We could be at the point where a choice is made that makes things worse, just when the chance, if the cards are played well, all of this could work in Israel's favour, Palestine could find a new road to peace, one the Arab world could live with.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 15, 2024, 09:04:43 AMSomething that needs to be said, since we glossed over it a bit to engage in arguing about minutiae of Iran's embassy being bombed (which is largely not actually very important), is the reason we in the West cannot trust "Palestinians", is because Palestinian is not a "natural" ethnic group.
Ethnic groups form over things like shared language, culture etc. The concept of a Palestinian nation exists and was created solely as a "negative nationalism", it is a concept that exists because Arabs don't view it as acceptable for Jews to have land and a country of their own. By its nature, identification as a Palestinian is membership in a group that exists solely as a negation of Israel.
If for whatever reason, a Jewish state had never been carved out of British Mandatory Palestine, if for example the Arabs won their initial war (which a large % of the posters in this thread would have preferred, and would likely gloss over or ignore the ensuing mass murder of Jews that would have occurred), there likely would not be a country called "Palestine" in that region. It would likely just be part of Jordan, and the Arabs living there would have no issue with that--because they were never "Palestinians", they were Arabs.
Like Canada.
It did not exist before America was created.
It did not even have a strong cultural identity before Quebec nationalism arose, they were happy with their Constitution being in London.
They have the same language as the Americans. They share their history with America. They share their ethnicity with America. They evolved because America evolved, the reason the country was created was to avoid the territories becoming American so a railroad was necessary to reach British-Columbia.
Basically, Canadian nationalism is a negative nationalism, and it's not a natural ethnic group, therefore, someone could totally genocide the entire country and it would not be a crime, right?
Canadians are just a bunch of evil motherfuckers who hate Americans with a passion, and who exists solely to not become American, despite having the same food, the same language, the same regional accents, the same culture with local variations. They are no more respectful of the environment once they are asked to pay for it. They have no more respect for the rule of law once they are asked to be confined home, they start to protest. Their right wing party are nearly as populist as the US right wing party, and there is no practical difference between the NDP/Liberal Party and the Democratic Party.
Therefore, Canada is a false country that should be annexed by the United States and any uncooperative citizen should be deported to Europe and see its house razed to make place for loyal Americans.
Quote from: viper37 on April 15, 2024, 02:58:12 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 15, 2024, 09:04:43 AMSomething that needs to be said, since we glossed over it a bit to engage in arguing about minutiae of Iran's embassy being bombed (which is largely not actually very important), is the reason we in the West cannot trust "Palestinians", is because Palestinian is not a "natural" ethnic group.
Ethnic groups form over things like shared language, culture etc. The concept of a Palestinian nation exists and was created solely as a "negative nationalism", it is a concept that exists because Arabs don't view it as acceptable for Jews to have land and a country of their own. By its nature, identification as a Palestinian is membership in a group that exists solely as a negation of Israel.
If for whatever reason, a Jewish state had never been carved out of British Mandatory Palestine, if for example the Arabs won their initial war (which a large % of the posters in this thread would have preferred, and would likely gloss over or ignore the ensuing mass murder of Jews that would have occurred), there likely would not be a country called "Palestine" in that region. It would likely just be part of Jordan, and the Arabs living there would have no issue with that--because they were never "Palestinians", they were Arabs.
Like Canada.
It did not exist before America was created.
It did not even have a strong cultural identity before Quebec nationalism arose, they were happy with their Constitution being in London.
They have the same language as the Americans. They share their history with America. They share their ethnicity with America. They evolved because America evolved, the reason the country was created was to avoid the territories becoming American so a railroad was necessary to reach British-Columbia.
Basically, Canadian nationalism is a negative nationalism, and it's not a natural ethnic group, therefore, someone could totally genocide the entire country and it would not be a crime, right?
Canadians are just a bunch of evil motherfuckers who hate Americans with a passion, and who exists solely to not become American, despite having the same food, the same language, the same regional accents, the same culture with local variations. They are no more respectful of the environment once they are asked to pay for it. They have no more respect for the rule of law once they are asked to be confined home, they start to protest. Their right wing party are nearly as populist as the US right wing party, and there is no practical difference between the NDP/Liberal Party and the Democratic Party.
Therefore, Canada is a false country that should be annexed by the United States and any uncooperative citizen should be deported to Europe and see its house razed to make place for loyal Americans.
I thought about bringing up Canada but decided to avoid it - but since you have...
The thing is Canada did have a strong national identity - or two of them at least. We were British and loyalist (or French-Canadian). I mean that's why so many loyalists moved to Canada after the American revolution.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/15/sympathy-shifted-to-israel-many-fear-iran-attack-has-distracted-aid-effort
QuoteIran's attack on Israel tested the country's air defences, but repaired – at least temporarily – Tel Aviv's fractured relationship with Washington, and pushed the war and the looming famine in Gaza out of the headlines and down the diplomatic agenda.
In Gaza, where almost all the civilian population is displaced and hungry after more than six months of war, this shift in attention has been felt acutely.
"Countries and peoples were sympathetic to us, but now sympathy has shifted to Israel," said Bashir Alyan, a 52-year-old former employee of the Palestinian Authority, who is now living in a tent in Rafah with his seven children. "Israel became the victim overnight."
:yeahright:
Quote from: Tamas on April 15, 2024, 03:19:40 PM:yeahright:
Which part do you disagree with?
The implication that Israel wasn't seen as a victim prior to the Iranian attack? Or the implication that the Iranian attack made people see Israel as a victim?
The former. Not that one can expect much nuance from somebody fighting for survival but maybe not even putting there a victim "again" due to, you know, 7 October, is a bit telling.
Quote from: viper37 on April 15, 2024, 02:58:12 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 15, 2024, 09:04:43 AMSomething that needs to be said, since we glossed over it a bit to engage in arguing about minutiae of Iran's embassy being bombed (which is largely not actually very important), is the reason we in the West cannot trust "Palestinians", is because Palestinian is not a "natural" ethnic group.
Ethnic groups form over things like shared language, culture etc. The concept of a Palestinian nation exists and was created solely as a "negative nationalism", it is a concept that exists because Arabs don't view it as acceptable for Jews to have land and a country of their own. By its nature, identification as a Palestinian is membership in a group that exists solely as a negation of Israel.
If for whatever reason, a Jewish state had never been carved out of British Mandatory Palestine, if for example the Arabs won their initial war (which a large % of the posters in this thread would have preferred, and would likely gloss over or ignore the ensuing mass murder of Jews that would have occurred), there likely would not be a country called "Palestine" in that region. It would likely just be part of Jordan, and the Arabs living there would have no issue with that--because they were never "Palestinians", they were Arabs.
Like Canada.
It did not exist before America was created.
It did not even have a strong cultural identity before Quebec nationalism arose, they were happy with their Constitution being in London.
They have the same language as the Americans. They share their history with America. They share their ethnicity with America. They evolved because America evolved, the reason the country was created was to avoid the territories becoming American so a railroad was necessary to reach British-Columbia.
Basically, Canadian nationalism is a negative nationalism, and it's not a natural ethnic group, therefore, someone could totally genocide the entire country and it would not be a crime, right?
Canadians are just a bunch of evil motherfuckers who hate Americans with a passion, and who exists solely to not become American, despite having the same food, the same language, the same regional accents, the same culture with local variations. They are no more respectful of the environment once they are asked to pay for it. They have no more respect for the rule of law once they are asked to be confined home, they start to protest. Their right wing party are nearly as populist as the US right wing party, and there is no practical difference between the NDP/Liberal Party and the Democratic Party.
Therefore, Canada is a false country that should be annexed by the United States and any uncooperative citizen should be deported to Europe and see its house razed to make place for loyal Americans.
Don't you just love it when he jumps off the rails like that?
Without falling down the interminable hallways of historical argument--the fact remains identification of oneself as Palestinian is largely an assertion that Israel should not exist.
The fact remains identification of oneself as Palestinian is largely an assertion that the British partition of Palestine and Transjordan did exist. Israelis were Palestinians themselves at that point.
QuoteWithout falling down the interminable hallways of historical argument--the fact remains identification of oneself as Palestinian is largely an assertion that Israel should not exist.
Because only one identity can ever exist in a single area? Multicultural places have never existed?
Everything between the Jordan and the sea is Israel?
Quote from: Tamas on April 15, 2024, 05:04:54 PMThe former. Not that one can expect much nuance from somebody fighting for survival but maybe not even putting there a victim "again" due to, you know, 7 October, is a bit telling.
Telling of what?
A lot has happened since the 7th of October.
By now Israel was clearly not the victim.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 15, 2024, 07:27:58 PMWithout falling down the interminable hallways of historical argument--the fact remains identification of oneself as Palestinian is largely an assertion that Israel should not exist.
Just about any country was artificial at one point in its history.
France was a patchwork of Duchy until someome was strong enough to keep them all in line behind him.
England was a bunch of kingdoms with no sense of national unity until the Vikings started plundering their coasts.
The idea of a Belgium with French and Dutch fighgting for the same King would have seemed silly to a medieval peasant, or even to an early 18th century noble from Flanders.
Outside of the Flemish themselves ;) , no one disputes the right of Belgium to exists.
If a language need to be truly unique for a nation to really exists, than the USA and the Commonwealth countries aren't real nations by your definitions.
BB gave you the example of Ukraine and Russia, which Russia denies the existence of. You're doing the exact same thing with Palestine.
The existence of one does not exclude the existence of the other. If the existence of one nations is felt as threat to the existence of the other, it's that last one that must deal with its insecurities.
Israel feels threatened so much by any secular affirmation of Palestinian nationalism that they are willing to nurture radical religious extremists bent on destroying them rather tham working with the Evil Secularists.
Then they complain everyone hates them.
Quote from: Barrister on April 15, 2024, 03:07:56 PMI thought about bringing up Canada but decided to avoid it - but since you have...
The thing is Canada did have a strong national identity - or two of them at least. We were British and loyalist (or French-Canadian). I mean that's why so many loyalists moved to Canada after the American revolution.
British Loyalists were British. There were no distinction between a British loyalist in Canada and a British subject in London. The British did not calles themselves Canadians. That name was reserves for the French speakers only.
Whenever you see a messave by the governors, he never mentions "Canadians" in its correspondance. No officer would do that.
Only with the advent of responsible government do you start hearing a bit about it.
More consequences of speech.
QuoteDani Marzouca was in bed trying to sleep when the phone started buzzing. An organization dedicated to publicly rebuking critics of Israel had posted on X a clip of Marzouca declaring that "radical solidarity with Palestine means ... not apologizing for Hamas."
The 20-second clip, from an Instagram live stream, rapidly garnered more than 1 million views. Soon, the group, StopAntisemitism, was calling Marzouca a "Hamas terrorist supporter" and tagging their employer, the branding firm Terakeet of Syracuse, N.Y. Hundreds of people commented on X, LinkedIn and email, including one who asked: "Do you really have antisemites like this working for you, @Terakeet?"
Within a day, Marzouca was fired — a development Terakeet announced as a reply to StopAntisemitism's Twitter thread, 15 hours after the original post.
"Thank you for your swift action," StopAntisemitism wrote.
Terakeet did not respond to a request for comment.
Marzouca, 32, is one of nearly three dozen people who have been fired or suspended from their jobs after being featured by StopAntisemitism, according to the group's X feed, part of a wave of digital activism related to the Israel-Gaza war. Since Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7 and Israel responded by attacking Gaza, groups have poured resources into identifying people with opposing political beliefs, sometimes deploying aggressive publicity campaigns that have resulted in profound real-world consequences.
Within weeks of Oct. 7, "doxing trucks" prowled the campuses of Harvard, Columbia and Princeton, displaying the names and photos of students and professors who had signed statements declaring solidarity with Palestinians. In January, a Rutgers Law School student sued the university, alleging that he had faced discriminatory disciplinary action after sharing what he deemed "pro-Hamas" messages from his classmates with school administrators.
Fullscreen button
They criticized Israel. This Twitter account upended their lives.
They criticized Israel. This Twitter account upended their lives.
© Kathleen Hinkel for The Washington Post
Dani Marzouca was in bed trying to sleep when the phone started buzzing. An organization dedicated to publicly rebuking critics of Israel had posted on X a clip of Marzouca declaring that "radical solidarity with Palestine means ... not apologizing for Hamas."
The 20-second clip, from an Instagram live stream, rapidly garnered more than 1 million views. Soon, the group, StopAntisemitism, was calling Marzouca a "Hamas terrorist supporter" and tagging their employer, the branding firm Terakeet of Syracuse, N.Y. Hundreds of people commented on X, LinkedIn and email, including one who asked: "Do you really have antisemites like this working for you, @Terakeet?"
HelloFresh®: 10 Free Meals - Get Free Dessert for Life
www.hellofresh.com/healthy/new-year
HelloFresh®: 10 Free Meals - Get Free Dessert for Life
Ad
Within a day, Marzouca was fired — a development Terakeet announced as a reply to StopAntisemitism's Twitter thread, 15 hours after the original post.
"Thank you for your swift action," StopAntisemitism wrote.
Terakeet did not respond to a request for comment.
Marzouca, 32, is one of nearly three dozen people who have been fired or suspended from their jobs after being featured by StopAntisemitism, according to the group's X feed, part of a wave of digital activism related to the Israel-Gaza war. Since Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7 and Israel responded by attacking Gaza, groups have poured resources into identifying people with opposing political beliefs, sometimes deploying aggressive publicity campaigns that have resulted in profound real-world consequences.
Within weeks of Oct. 7, "doxing trucks" prowled the campuses of Harvard, Columbia and Princeton, displaying the names and photos of students and professors who had signed statements declaring solidarity with Palestinians. In January, a Rutgers Law School student sued the university, alleging that he had faced discriminatory disciplinary action after sharing what he deemed "pro-Hamas" messages from his classmates with school administrators.
Related video: Israel's planned Al Jazeera ban condemned (Al Jazeera)
We're extremely alarmed by this. It's yet another attempt by
Current Time 0:18
/
Duration 2:47
Al Jazeera
Israel's planned Al Jazeera ban condemned
0
View on Watch
View on Watch
Six months into the war, the strategy has spread well beyond academia — and become especially potent among pro-Israel groups determined to call out any statement they believe to be antisemitic.
Among a bevy of small social media accounts, StopAntisemitism has become one of the most prominent — and widely followed. Though some groups are dedicated to surfacing anti-Palestinian speech, none has StopAntisemitism's reach or impact. Founded in 2018 as a "response to increasing antisemitic violence," StopAntisemitism has dialed up its activity on X since the war, and often provides its more than 300,000 followers with personal social media profiles and employer details for people it identifies as antisemitic.
"By publicly exposing antisemites, StopAntisemitism has created an environment where those who propagate hatred against the Jewish people are met with real-world consequences including but not limited to job loss and school expulsions," StopAntisemitism's website reads.
"StopAntisemitism gets results," Liora Rez, the group's executive director, boasted in a LinkedIn post in November.
"This is just a small sampling of the bigots StopAntisemitism has gotten fired or suspended in the past week," she wrote next to photos of people featured by the account. "Sick of the legacy orgs doing nothing with your donations? DM me!"
Rez did not respond to a request for comment.
Activists have long used the internet to publicize comments they find offensive, and such pressure campaigns have been central to movements like #MeToo and Black Lives Matter. But the complex politics and brutal violence of the Israel-Gaza war have created a particularly divisive moment. A slew of figures have faced consequences for making statements about Israelis, the Israeli state and the war, including a New York Times Magazine writer, law students entering the job market and Palestinian Israelis, who have been jailed in Israel for being perceived as sympathetic to Hamas.
Marzouca, who lives in Los Angeles and uses they/them pronouns, said StopAntisemitism's X post triggered a stream of threats. People emailed Marzouca saying they deserved to be sent to Gaza to die and criticizing their appearance, with one person calling them a "disgusting, manipulative rat."
In response to questions from The Washington Post about the group's online activity, Marc Greendorfer, founder of the Zachor Legal Institute, a legal think tank representing StopAntisemitism, described the group's activity as "reposting." It "[repeats] verbatim, the public statements of people making antisemitic statements and provides opinion on those statements," he wrote in a letter.
Some prominent Jewish advocates argue that groups like StopAntisemitism play an important role in cracking down on religious discrimination. "If an individual is going to publish or say hateful things — against any person or group — they should be held to account for them," Jonathan Greenblatt, chief executive of the Anti-Defamation League, told The Post in a statement. He added that the ADL directly confronts such individuals, "calling for consequences if they do not apologize or attempt to change their ways."
Others view this type of sleuthing as a damaging form of online vigilantism. Joan Donovan, an expert in digital activism and an assistant professor at Boston University, argued that the group's efforts are a form of doxing — the practice of posting personal information online to encourage harassment — which in turn chills debate.
"When the mob is the judge, jury and executioner, we all end up suffering," Donovan added.
The high-stakes war has found especially fertile ground on social media, where some Palestinian rights activists say they are disproportionately named, shamed and punished.
"The intent here is not just to punish but also to have a chilling effect," said Lara Friedman, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, a think tank. "It's to send a message to people that ... if you dare speak out of line when it comes to questions related to Israel, you can and may face dramatic consequences — life-changing consequences."
'StopAntisemitism gets results'
The bloody Israel-Gaza war has intensified the long-standing debate over when and whether critiques of Israel are antisemitic. Since the Zionist movement began in the late 1800s, with European Jews seeking a nation-state, it has drawn heavy criticism — and birthed common false conspiracy theories about Jewish power. But as critics of Israel, including many Jewish people, have denounced the state for its treatment of Palestinians, some supporters have countered with a broad argument that any criticism of Israel or Zionism is inherently anti-Jewish.
"There are a lot of reasonable differences," said Lila Corwin Berman, a professor of Jewish history at Temple University. "[But] a lot of organizations [are] taking a pretty blunt-tool approach that any articulation of anti-Zionism is antisemitism."
Greendorfer, of the Zachor Legal Institute, said StopAntisemitism uses the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism, which includes denying Israel's right to exist.
StopAntisemitism has flagged people for a variety of statements the organization considers antisemitic, including a college instructor who called Israelis "pigs" and a high school basketball coach who wore a shirt with a watermelon, a symbol of solidarity with the Palestinian cause, to a game. (Both apologized, and the college instructor is "no longer with" their workplace, according to a StopAntisemitism post.)
The organization is ratcheting up its sleuthing abilities. As of early February, StopAntisemitism has been seeking a senior open-source intelligence researcher who has existing partnerships with law enforcement and is adept at monitoring social media and the dark web for antisemitic posts, according to StopAntisemitism's website. (The role pays between $85,000 to $100,000, the job posting said.)
The Adam and Gila Milstein Family Foundation lists StopAntisemitism as a "supported organization" on its website. The philanthropy is tied to Adam Milstein, a wealthy real estate investor who is the co-founder of the Israeli American Council, a prominent Jewish advocacy group.
According to 2022 tax filings, the Merona Leadership Foundation, where Milstein's wife, Gila, serves as president, paid a $125,633 salary to Rez, StopAntisemitism's executive director, and provides the organization about $270,000 to cover its expenses.
Greendorfer said The Post's characterization of StopAntisemitism's funding is a "misinterpretation" but declined to elaborate further. Nathan Miller, a representative for the Adam and Gila Milstein Family Foundation, declined to comment. The Merona Leadership Foundation declined to comment.
Donovan, of Boston University, said online efforts to punish enemies originate with activist accounts, such as those that identify unethical police officers. But as a flurry of right- and left-wing accounts used the tactic to publicize and shame people without public power, the strategy became diffuse, wielded to demonize everyone from supporters of transgender rights to Jan. 6 insurrectionists.
These accounts have become so widespread that it is difficult for social media companies to regulate them, Donovan said. When the billionaire Elon Musk took over Twitter, now named X, the platform's attempts to rein in posts triggering harassment dropped significantly, she added. Representatives from X did not respond to a request for comment.
Greendorfer says that because StopAntisemitism doesn't post "private information," its methods don't amount to doxing.
Posting identifying information about nonpublic figures can be harmful, according to Nina Jankowicz, an expert on disinformation and online abuse.
"When we're thinking about ... using social media to blow the whistle or to hold powerful people to account, that's very different than [doing it] because you disagree with them or because they've expressed an opinion that you find repugnant," she said.
Celine Khalife, a 25-year-old therapist, says StopAntisemitism shut down her career just as it was getting started. A video posted by StopAntisemitism shows the Palestinian American tearing down a poster of Israeli hostages. She said Israel kidnapped its own citizens, a false conspiracy theory.
Khalife, who fled Lebanon after Israel bombed Beirut in 2006, told The Post that she was flustered and misspoke in the video. She said she removed the poster because it contained the phrase "Hamas terrorists" — propaganda, she argues, meant to minimize the Palestinian struggle.
StopAntisemitism linked to Khalife's therapy clinic bio and posted her Psychology Today profile, warning that "patients must be made aware of her intrinsic bias and hateful act."
Dozens messaged her workplace insisting she be fired immediately; other notes poured into her cellphone and personal email. "What's going on with your nutjob therapist, Celine Khalife?" one message viewed by The Post said.
Four days after the video surfaced, the clinic fired Khalife, according to an internal message viewed by The Post. On Facebook, the company announced it was aware of the "viral incident" and said it does "not condone violence or intolerance in any form, nor do we condone misinformation." (Khalife's former employer, the Grace Therapy and Wellness Center, did not respond to a request for comment.)
Khalife said it was "crippling" to deal with the harassment, job loss and damage to her professional reputation. She was not sure she could even pay her roommate $1,100 in rent.
"I felt like I couldn't go lower," she said. "And then I did."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/they-criticized-israel-this-twitter-account-upended-their-lives/ar-BB1lHP4Z?ocid=winp2fptaskbar&cvid=5d7ba66126d04f90baf2943b5fb7b815&ei=9&sc=shoreline
The ramblings of Dani Marzouca. https://twitter.com/MichaelShurkin/status/1741464955147128967
I am against "cancelling" otherwise unknown people because they said stupid stuff on the internet. I still feel that way when I feel like the stupid stuff was particularly stupid like here.
Oderint dum metuant
QuoteWithin a day, Marzouca was fired — a development Terakeet announced as a reply to StopAntisemitism's Twitter thread, 15 hours after the original post.
"Thank you for your swift action," StopAntisemitism wrote.
Good, these people need consequenced.
Some of these people sound like idiots, like the Israel kidnapped it's own people woman. But not sure wrecking her life is quite on the same level as a randomer just saying something idiotic that doesn't have any impact anywhere. But OK sure.
But then a truck parading around doxing people just for signing a statement of solidarity with Palestine... Jesus that's scummy.
No one makes you go around spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories and tearing down posters of Jewish hostages, you choose to behave that way in public, other people choose to not want to associate with you--including perhaps your employer. 100% fine.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 16, 2024, 12:48:28 PMNo one makes you go around spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories and tearing down posters of Jewish hostages, you choose to behave that way in public, other people choose to not want to associate with you--including perhaps your employer. 100% fine.
People in glass houses....
Quote from: Josquius on April 16, 2024, 12:44:30 PMSome of these people sound like idiots, like the Israel kidnapped it's own people woman. But not sure wrecking her life is quite on the same level as a randomer just saying something idiotic that doesn't have any impact anywhere. But OK sure.
But then a truck parading around doxing people just for signing a statement of solidarity with Palestine... Jesus that's scummy.
It was a statement that blamed the Oct 7th attacks on the Israelis. No more scummy than Metoo or any other of these things that hold people responsible.
Dani Marzouca statements are pretty inline with the all the pro-pal organizations in the US. It's not that "Gee, the Israelis are a little to hard on the Palestinians" it is that Israel must cease to exist.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2024, 01:45:58 PMDani Marzouca statements are pretty inline with the all the pro-pal organizations in the US. It's not that "Gee, the Israelis are a little to hard on the Palestinians" it is that Israel must cease to exist.
Yeah, it would be amusing if it wasn't so tragic that you can take pro-Palestinian positions, reverse the words "Israel" and "Palestine" and not be able to distinguish them from the pro-Israel positions. It seems people love to tacitly support genocide.
As an aside, I hear an analyst on NPR yesterday note that it cost Israel an estimated $1 billion to defeat the Iranian attack, and it cost Iran an estimated $30 million to mount it.
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2024, 01:59:02 PMQuote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2024, 01:45:58 PMDani Marzouca statements are pretty inline with the all the pro-pal organizations in the US. It's not that "Gee, the Israelis are a little to hard on the Palestinians" it is that Israel must cease to exist.
Yeah, it would be amusing if it wasn't so tragic that you can take pro-Palestinian positions, reverse the words "Israel" and "Palestine" and not be able to distinguish them from the pro-Israel positions. It seems people love to tacitly support genocide.
Both sides!
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2024, 02:00:14 PMAs an aside, I hear an analyst on NPR yesterday note that it cost Israel an estimated $1 billion to defeat the Iranian attack, and it cost Iran an estimated $30 million to mount it.
I... I would question those sums.
Quote from: Barrister on April 16, 2024, 02:11:41 PMQuote from: grumbler on April 16, 2024, 02:00:14 PMAs an aside, I hear an analyst on NPR yesterday note that it cost Israel an estimated $1 billion to defeat the Iranian attack, and it cost Iran an estimated $30 million to mount it.
I... I would question those sums.
Feel free. Keep in mind that Anti-ABM missiles cost in the neighborhood of $3-4 million each.
Quote from: Josquius on April 16, 2024, 01:02:51 PMPeople in glass houses....
I think that's Otto's point. Anyone who makes a public statement opens themselves to judgement.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2024, 02:40:23 PMQuote from: Josquius on April 16, 2024, 01:02:51 PMPeople in glass houses....
I think that's Otto's point. Anyone who makes a public statement opens themselves to judgement.
And mine is he has said far worse.
As said to me it depends on the extent of your shit whether it's justified.
When you hear of cases where someone fucks up and one off makes a joke which gets them jumped on then that's just not cool.
When someone makes a habit of saying really extreme stuff, particularly when targeting others, and despite several warnings persist... Then actions have consequences comes into play.
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2024, 02:34:20 PMQuote from: Barrister on April 16, 2024, 02:11:41 PMQuote from: grumbler on April 16, 2024, 02:00:14 PMAs an aside, I hear an analyst on NPR yesterday note that it cost Israel an estimated $1 billion to defeat the Iranian attack, and it cost Iran an estimated $30 million to mount it.
I... I would question those sums.
Feel free. Keep in mind that Anti-ABM missiles cost in the neighborhood of $3-4 million each.
The idea that Israel's anti missile system costs more than Iran's missiles? Sure.
But by 30x as much?
Doesn't sound right to me. There's lots of ways to inflate the Israeli costs - perhaps by including development costs.
But like I said - I would question it, but I don't know.
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2024, 02:00:14 PMAs an aside, I hear an analyst on NPR yesterday note that it cost Israel an estimated $1 billion to defeat the Iranian attack, and it cost Iran an estimated $30 million to mount it.
That isn't quite accurate, most reporting seems to suggest the lion's share of the Iranian attack just fell apart in the sky, so w/e Israel spent (and I don't necessarily believe the reporting for various reasons), would have only been used to defeat a small portion of the attack that didn't fall apart in transit.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 16, 2024, 02:51:39 PMQuote from: grumbler on April 16, 2024, 02:00:14 PMAs an aside, I hear an analyst on NPR yesterday note that it cost Israel an estimated $1 billion to defeat the Iranian attack, and it cost Iran an estimated $30 million to mount it.
That isn't quite accurate, most reporting seems to suggest the lion's share of the Iranian attack just fell apart in the sky, so w/e Israel spent (and I don't necessarily believe the reporting for various reasons), would have only been used to defeat a small portion of the attack that didn't fall apart in transit.
That sounds worse if it's implied that the $30 million was the whole lot but only a minority's worth (say $10 million's worth) actually got through to be shot down. In which case it's more like 100 to 1.
Quote from: Barrister on April 16, 2024, 02:49:44 PMQuote from: grumbler on April 16, 2024, 02:34:20 PMQuote from: Barrister on April 16, 2024, 02:11:41 PMQuote from: grumbler on April 16, 2024, 02:00:14 PMAs an aside, I hear an analyst on NPR yesterday note that it cost Israel an estimated $1 billion to defeat the Iranian attack, and it cost Iran an estimated $30 million to mount it.
I... I would question those sums.
Feel free. Keep in mind that Anti-ABM missiles cost in the neighborhood of $3-4 million each.
The idea that Israel's anti missile system costs more than Iran's missiles? Sure.
But by 30x as much?
Doesn't sound right to me. There's lots of ways to inflate the Israeli costs - perhaps by including development costs.
But like I said - I would question it, but I don't know.
A lot of Irans attack was using super cheap drones. Iirc $20k each or so?
Israel and friends hit them with patriots and the like. Vastly more expensive. Over a million a missile?
Iran also used some ballistic missiles which will cost a lot more. I recall reading this was a first time missiles were intercepted in space.
But I don't think they'd have shifted the dial too much on the massive $ gains of the drones.
Though on the topic it seems some good news is coming out of this with Israel shifting towards aid for Ukraine....
https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-first-israel-said-to-authorize-sale-of-defensive-military-equipment-to-ukraine/
It was more than just Israeli missiles, though. In fact, current reports indicate that, in fact, most of the attacking missiles and drones were shot down by US and UK fighters and USN destroyers.
That said, I have no good way of estimating munitions used and cost, which is why I just quote what the experts say as reported by the press.
Quote from: Josquius on April 16, 2024, 02:56:38 PMQuote from: Barrister on April 16, 2024, 02:49:44 PMQuote from: grumbler on April 16, 2024, 02:34:20 PMQuote from: Barrister on April 16, 2024, 02:11:41 PMQuote from: grumbler on April 16, 2024, 02:00:14 PMAs an aside, I hear an analyst on NPR yesterday note that it cost Israel an estimated $1 billion to defeat the Iranian attack, and it cost Iran an estimated $30 million to mount it.
I... I would question those sums.
Feel free. Keep in mind that Anti-ABM missiles cost in the neighborhood of $3-4 million each.
The idea that Israel's anti missile system costs more than Iran's missiles? Sure.
But by 30x as much?
Doesn't sound right to me. There's lots of ways to inflate the Israeli costs - perhaps by including development costs.
But like I said - I would question it, but I don't know.
A lot of Irans attack was using super cheap drones. Iirc $20k each or so?
Israel and friends hit them with patriots and the like. Vastly more expensive. Over a million a missile?
Iran also used some ballistic missiles which will cost a lot more. I recall reading this was a first time missiles were intercepted in space.
But I don't think they'd have shifted the dial too much on the massive $ gains of the drones.
Though on the topic it seems some good news is coming out of this with Israel shifting towards aid for Ukraine....
https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-first-israel-said-to-authorize-sale-of-defensive-military-equipment-to-ukraine/
Perhaps if the stand-off re Ukrainian aid continues in Congress, maybe the US military aid to Israel could be re-packaged in such a way that Israel then could send some of it to Ukraine?
Quote from: Josquius on April 16, 2024, 02:48:57 PMAnd mine is he has said far worse.
As said to me it depends on the extent of your shit whether it's justified.
When you hear of cases where someone fucks up and one off makes a joke which gets them jumped on then that's just not cool.
When someone makes a habit of saying really extreme stuff, particularly when targeting others, and despite several warnings persist... Then actions have consequences comes into play.
Worse than what? I haven't caught him trying to peddle any conspiracy theories like that therapist chick.
I don't know what you're talking about with the one off joking stuff. That doesn't describe anything that's been brought up here.
My position is simple: cancel whomever you want for whatever reason you want, but you don't get to bitch when the other side does the same thing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2024, 03:14:40 PMQuote from: Josquius on April 16, 2024, 02:48:57 PMAnd mine is he has said far worse.
As said to me it depends on the extent of your shit whether it's justified.
When you hear of cases where someone fucks up and one off makes a joke which gets them jumped on then that's just not cool.
When someone makes a habit of saying really extreme stuff, particularly when targeting others, and despite several warnings persist... Then actions have consequences comes into play.
Worse than what? I haven't caught him trying to peddle any conspiracy theories like that therapist chick.
I don't know what you're talking about with the one off joking stuff. That doesn't describe anything that's been brought up here.
My position is simple: cancel whomever you want for whatever reason you want, but you don't get to bitch when the other side does the same thing.
Otto has said repeatedly how much he doesn't like Islam as a religion.
Stuff I strongly he wouldn't say publicly, under his real name.
My position is equally simple: people with no public profile shouldn't be fired from their jobs for saying something idiotic on social media. You can get into a bit of a debate about what does it mean to have a public profile (I mean go after Tucker Carlson or Louis CK all day long, probably your local city councillor, but is some guy with 1000 twitter followers fair game) but I think it's pretty simple.
Quote from: Barrister on April 16, 2024, 03:20:02 PMMy position is equally simple: people with no public profile shouldn't be fired from their jobs for saying something idiotic on social media. You can get into a bit of a debate about what does it mean to have a public profile (I mean go after Tucker Carlson or Louis CK all day long, probably your local city councillor, but is some guy with 1000 twitter followers fair game) but I think it's pretty simple.
I don't see how public profile makes a difference. The issue for the employer is whether continued association with that person, public or not, will hurt the bottom line.
Now if you're saying you personally do not withdraw your business in protest from a company which employs a non high profile person who has said things you consider odious, do you think I have a moral obligation to continue business dealings with this guy's law firm?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2024, 03:50:27 PMQuote from: Barrister on April 16, 2024, 03:20:02 PMMy position is equally simple: people with no public profile shouldn't be fired from their jobs for saying something idiotic on social media. You can get into a bit of a debate about what does it mean to have a public profile (I mean go after Tucker Carlson or Louis CK all day long, probably your local city councillor, but is some guy with 1000 twitter followers fair game) but I think it's pretty simple.
I don't see how public profile makes a difference. The issue for the employer is whether continued association with that person, public or not, will hurt the bottom line.
Now if you're saying you personally do not withdraw your business in protest from a company which employs a non high profile person who has said things you consider odious, do you think I have a moral obligation to continue business dealings with this guy's law firm?
Because if you choose to put yourself out as a public person and try to influence the wider political debate you should be more willing to accept the consequences.
30 years ago your racist uncle could talk about how much he hates black people. Such views were odious then, and odious today. But 30 years ago he'd just get a bunch of dirty looks. Now, if he says it on social media (or is filmed and the video is put on social media - most of the time again nothing happens. But one time out of a 100 or a thousand suddenly it goes viral and he's fired. And the chance of it going viral is very much influenced by certain actors with a very, very specific axe to grind.
And it's one thing with my "racst uncle" example, who is at least older. When we're talking about college students, or even high school students, it's even worse. There've been stories about kids getting their university acceptances yanked because of something they said online.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2024, 03:14:40 PMQuote from: Josquius on April 16, 2024, 02:48:57 PMAnd mine is he has said far worse.
As said to me it depends on the extent of your shit whether it's justified.
When you hear of cases where someone fucks up and one off makes a joke which gets them jumped on then that's just not cool.
When someone makes a habit of saying really extreme stuff, particularly when targeting others, and despite several warnings persist... Then actions have consequences comes into play.
Worse than what? I haven't caught him trying to peddle any conspiracy theories like that therapist chick.
I don't know what you're talking about with the one off joking stuff. That doesn't describe anything that's been brought up here.
It was a theoretical of one extreme.
In this case it's a nobody who mentioned a silly conspiracy theory. Maybe once.?. No sign of her being utterly devoted to it. She even claims she misspoke.
QuoteMy position is simple: cancel whomever you want for whatever reason you want, but you don't get to bitch when the other side does the same thing.
Maybe I missed part of the story here. They "cancelled" somebody before getting doxed?
Engaging in shitty behaviour then acting shocked when it's done to you would indeed be beautiful but I'm not seeing that?
Quote from: PJL on April 16, 2024, 02:56:11 PMThat sounds worse if it's implied that the $30 million was the whole lot but only a minority's worth (say $10 million's worth) actually got through to be shot down. In which case it's more like 100 to 1.
Well, it could be a worse ratio than implied, yes--but there's a lot to it. Military costing is hilariously complex and I don't know off hand what the source of all these weapons were and how much Israel actually paid for them, and as Grumbler mentions, France and the U.S. shot down some of this stuff, so unclear if their costs were included or etc.
Quote from: Barrister on April 16, 2024, 03:56:33 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2024, 03:50:27 PMQuote from: Barrister on April 16, 2024, 03:20:02 PMMy position is equally simple: people with no public profile shouldn't be fired from their jobs for saying something idiotic on social media. You can get into a bit of a debate about what does it mean to have a public profile (I mean go after Tucker Carlson or Louis CK all day long, probably your local city councillor, but is some guy with 1000 twitter followers fair game) but I think it's pretty simple.
I don't see how public profile makes a difference. The issue for the employer is whether continued association with that person, public or not, will hurt the bottom line.
Now if you're saying you personally do not withdraw your business in protest from a company which employs a non high profile person who has said things you consider odious, do you think I have a moral obligation to continue business dealings with this guy's law firm?
Because if you choose to put yourself out as a public person and try to influence the wider political debate you should be more willing to accept the consequences.
30 years ago your racist uncle could talk about how much he hates black people. Such views were odious then, and odious today. But 30 years ago he'd just get a bunch of dirty looks. Now, if he says it on social media (or is filmed and the video is put on social media - most of the time again nothing happens. But one time out of a 100 or a thousand suddenly it goes viral and he's fired. And the chance of it going viral is very much influenced by certain actors with a very, very specific axe to grind.
And it's one thing with my "racst uncle" example, who is at least older. When we're talking about college students, or even high school students, it's even worse. There've been stories about kids getting their university acceptances yanked because of something they said online.
Your racist uncle sounds like he deserved to be fired. That he was allowed to get away with it 30 years ago was terrible.
Quote from: Barrister on April 16, 2024, 03:20:02 PMOtto has said repeatedly how much he doesn't like Islam as a religion.
I know not many of us remain on this board, but I thought you were a Christian? Do you have no issue w/Islamic theology?
Islam is an ideology, it is not, and should never be treated, as sacrosanct. While it has become a meme term, "Islamofascism" is real, and it is a dominant form of Islamism present in many Islamic-majority regions.
I also take issue even with non-fascistic Islamic theology, but that is also a difference of degree--it should also be noted the rot among the "Palestinians" is both Islamist and secular, as they have ample genocidal and antisemitic intent in both camps of their "cause."
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2024, 04:20:32 PMYour racist uncle sounds like he deserved to be fired. That he was allowed to get away with it 30 years ago was terrible.
Why? Really - what does that even accomplish?
What about Justine Sacco? She was boarding a flight for South Africa when she tweeted "Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just kidding. I'm white!". She was fired before her plane landed in South Africa.
What did that accomplish?
If some Palestinian activist posts about how the holocaust was a good idea and all Jews need to be killed - does it help anyone to see them fired from their job at Burger King?
Quote from: Barrister on April 16, 2024, 03:56:33 PMBecause if you choose to put yourself out as a public person and try to influence the wider political debate you should be more willing to accept the consequences.
30 years ago your racist uncle could talk about how much he hates black people. Such views were odious then, and odious today. But 30 years ago he'd just get a bunch of dirty looks. Now, if he says it on social media (or is filmed and the video is put on social media - most of the time again nothing happens. But one time out of a 100 or a thousand suddenly it goes viral and he's fired. And the chance of it going viral is very much influenced by certain actors with a very, very specific axe to grind.
And it's one thing with my "racst uncle" example, who is at least older. When we're talking about college students, or even high school students, it's even worse. There've been stories about kids getting their university acceptances yanked because of something they said online.
If your racist uncle goes online and says how much he hates blacks, is he not "trying to influence the wider public debate?"
Which gets us back to my video of the racist lawyer. He did not post his rant online himself; he was filmed by a third party. Am I required to continue to do business with his firm under your code?
Quote from: Barrister on April 16, 2024, 04:42:52 PMQuote from: garbon on April 16, 2024, 04:20:32 PMYour racist uncle sounds like he deserved to be fired. That he was allowed to get away with it 30 years ago was terrible.
Why? Really - what does that even accomplish?
Establishes consequences for saying racist things.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 16, 2024, 04:38:15 PMQuote from: Barrister on April 16, 2024, 03:20:02 PMOtto has said repeatedly how much he doesn't like Islam as a religion.
I know not many of us remain on this board, but I thought you were a Christian? Do you have no issue w/Islamic theology?
Islam is an ideology, it is not, and should never be treated, as sacrosanct. While it has become a meme term, "Islamofascism" is real, and it is a dominant form of Islamism present in many Islamic-majority regions.
I also take issue even with non-fascistic Islamic theology, but that is also a difference of degree--it should also be noted the rot among the "Palestinians" is both Islamist and secular, as they have ample genocidal and antisemitic intent in both camps of their "cause."
I am a Christian. I think the route to salvation lies with Jesus Christ, and I very much disagree with many aspects of Islamic theology.
I also recognize we live in a religiously diverse world. In the right circumstances I would encourage Muslims to abandon their faith and embrace Christ. I think it would be highly counter-productive however to say how much I hate Islam. And I do know many Muslims who are very lovely people.
But since you responded to part of my post, what about the rest? Would you say the same things if you were posting under your own name?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2024, 04:43:19 PMIf your racist uncle goes online and says how much he hates blacks, is he not "trying to influence the wider public debate?"
Which gets us back to my video of the racist lawyer. He did not post his rant online himself; he was filmed by a third party. Am I required to continue to do business with his firm under your code?
I am very much trying to not get into rules and what is "required" about social media.
I just think as a society we should act with more grace and humility when stupid people say stupid things.
Quote from: Barrister on April 16, 2024, 04:47:39 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2024, 04:43:19 PMIf your racist uncle goes online and says how much he hates blacks, is he not "trying to influence the wider public debate?"
Which gets us back to my video of the racist lawyer. He did not post his rant online himself; he was filmed by a third party. Am I required to continue to do business with his firm under your code?
I am very much trying to not get into rules and what is "required" about social media.
I just think as a society we should act with more grace and humility when stupid people say stupid things.
Racism is still a problem. Why should I be tolerant of people who say racist things?
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2024, 04:56:01 PMQuote from: Barrister on April 16, 2024, 04:47:39 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2024, 04:43:19 PMIf your racist uncle goes online and says how much he hates blacks, is he not "trying to influence the wider public debate?"
Which gets us back to my video of the racist lawyer. He did not post his rant online himself; he was filmed by a third party. Am I required to continue to do business with his firm under your code?
I am very much trying to not get into rules and what is "required" about social media.
I just think as a society we should act with more grace and humility when stupid people say stupid things.
Racism is still a problem. Why should I be tolerant of people who say racist things?
Elderly guy who sometimes slips up and says "coloured" vs. Guy your age who goes out of his way to blow dog whistles and spread offensive memes.
It's not that the old guy did nothing wrong. But priorities.
And even if you had all the time in the world do both really warrant the same punishment?
Quote from: Josquius on April 16, 2024, 05:01:44 PMQuote from: garbon on April 16, 2024, 04:56:01 PMQuote from: Barrister on April 16, 2024, 04:47:39 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2024, 04:43:19 PMIf your racist uncle goes online and says how much he hates blacks, is he not "trying to influence the wider public debate?"
Which gets us back to my video of the racist lawyer. He did not post his rant online himself; he was filmed by a third party. Am I required to continue to do business with his firm under your code?
I am very much trying to not get into rules and what is "required" about social media.
I just think as a society we should act with more grace and humility when stupid people say stupid things.
Racism is still a problem. Why should I be tolerant of people who say racist things?
Elderly guy who sometimes slips up and says "coloured" vs. Guy your age who goes out of his way to blow dog whistles and spread offensive memes.
It's not that the old guy did nothing wrong. But priorities.
And even if you had all the time in the world do both really warrant the same punishment?
This seems irrelevant. Try again?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 16, 2024, 04:38:15 PMI know not many of us remain on this board, but I thought you were a Christian? Do you have no issue w/Islamic theology?
Islam is an ideology, it is not, and should never be treated, as sacrosanct. While it has become a meme term, "Islamofascism" is real, and it is a dominant form of Islamism present in many Islamic-majority regions.
Because Christianity is much better?
No abortions, check.
Homosexuality is a sin, check.
No acceptance for LGBT, check.
Theocracy is an ideal, check.
Atheists should be executed, check.
Blasphemy is a grave sin that should be punished, check.
I don't really see the difference between one zealot and another.
Quote from: Josquius on April 16, 2024, 04:10:26 PMIt was a theoretical of one extreme.
In this case it's a nobody who mentioned a silly conspiracy theory. Maybe once.?. No sign of her being utterly devoted to it. She even claims she misspoke.
Which one is it, a theoretical or an actual case?
I don't know what you mean by "silly" conspiracy theory. I think they're all silly in that they ignore evidence. Do you mean harmless? As in, no possible harm could come from people thinking the Hamas kidnapping was a false flag operation?
If you treat this chick exactly as you would a Holocaust denier who says it maybe once? Showing no signs of being "utterly devoted" to it, then I've got no beef with you. I suspect your response to that would be different.
QuoteMaybe I missed part of the story here. They "cancelled" somebody before getting doxed?
Engaging in shitty behaviour then acting shocked when it's done to you would indeed be beautiful but I'm not seeing that?
I don't know what you're talking about with cancelled before getting doxed. Theoretical or specific case?
Quote from: Barrister on April 16, 2024, 04:47:39 PMI am very much trying to not get into rules and what is "required" about social media.
I just think as a society we should act with more grace and humility when stupid people say stupid things.
You opened that door counselor when you said people should not be fired. One of two things follow from that: either we the general public have a duty to continue to buy their goods or services, or the employer has an obligation to eat the loss.
My view is the same as it was before: I find the saying "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech" to be monumentally Orwellian. IMO, someone saying that and meaning it either has authoritarian mindset, or hasn't thought through the meaning of what that says to the end.
Lack of prohibitive consequences is exactly what freedom is. It is true that First Amendment only protects you from prohibitive consequences dished out by the government, but that doesn't mean that prohibitive consequences dished out by other entities holding power over you are something we should want more of. When people aren't free to say what they think, regardless of how that is accomplished, society suffers.
Quote from: DGuller on April 16, 2024, 05:41:41 PMMy view is the same as it was before: I find the saying "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech" to be monumentally Orwellian. IMO, someone saying that and meaning it either has authoritarian mindset, or hasn't thought through the meaning of what that says to the end.
Lack of prohibitive consequences is exactly what freedom is. It is true that First Amendment only protects you from prohibitive consequences dished out by the government, but that doesn't mean that prohibitive consequences dished out by other entities holding power over you are something we should want more of. When people aren't free to say what they think, regardless of how that is accomplished, society suffers.
And I think the other side of the coin is the freedom to contract. Like all thoughts it's possible I haven't thought it through, but I don't think supporting the freedom to contract is authoritarian. Compelling me to continue to buy from a company who's employee I object to is authoritarian.
Quote from: DGuller on April 16, 2024, 05:41:41 PMMy view is the same as it was before: I find the saying "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech" to be monumentally Orwellian. IMO, someone saying that and meaning it either has authoritarian mindset, or hasn't thought through the meaning of what that says to the end.
Lack of prohibitive consequences is exactly what freedom is. It is true that First Amendment only protects you from prohibitive consequences dished out by the government, but that doesn't mean that prohibitive consequences dished out by other entities holding power over you are something we should want more of. When people aren't free to say what they think, regardless of how that is accomplished, society suffers.
What about the freedom to run your business as you see fit? Why should a therapy company be forced to employ a hateful antisemite? One with views that suggest she could even be a danger to any Jewish patients?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 16, 2024, 05:51:25 PMWhat about the freedom to run your business as you see fit? Why should a therapy company be forced to employ a hateful antisemite? One with views that suggest she could even be a danger to any Jewish patients?
You can't respect all the freedoms at the same time. We chose to value the freedom to run your business as you see fit more than to value the freedom of speech, for whatever reason, but that doesn't make it a good thing when freedom of speech gets trampled by the freedom to run the business as you see fit.
The freedom to run your business as you see fit is not universal either, it gets trumped in some circumstances as well. At some point we decided that "No Irish Need Apply" was no longer legal, maybe sometime in the future we'll decide that employers enforcing censorship on their employees isn't compatible with society we want to have as well.
We have never decided the freedom to say offensive things trumps property / contract rights, we have decided protecting people in Federally protected classes (which don't include "people who spread antisemitic conspiracy theories") does, and I would not want to see that protection expanded further.
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2024, 04:56:01 PMQuote from: Barrister on April 16, 2024, 04:47:39 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2024, 04:43:19 PMIf your racist uncle goes online and says how much he hates blacks, is he not "trying to influence the wider public debate?"
Which gets us back to my video of the racist lawyer. He did not post his rant online himself; he was filmed by a third party. Am I required to continue to do business with his firm under your code?
I am very much trying to not get into rules and what is "required" about social media.
I just think as a society we should act with more grace and humility when stupid people say stupid things.
Racism is still a problem. Why should I be tolerant of people who say racist things?
Because they are a person. They are one of God's creations. Because they deserve a certain level of respect.
I mean I've been prosecuting this dude for child sex abuse. I think he's slime and needs to go to jail. But he deserves a certain level of respect just as a human being.
And on some level out understand that. If you heard someone say something racist you wouldn't go beat the shit out of them (even if you could get away with it). You probably would say something to them.
I just think trying to get some nobody fired from their job if more like beating them up, and less like just saying something.
This racist uncle character - maybe he's supporting his wife, and maybe kids. He's got bills to pay. Who is it really helping to try and get him fired? And do you really think it'll make him less racist? Or maybe even more racist, but just less willing to say something in public.
Finally "tolerate" doesn't mean "ignore" or "agree with". It's just you temper your response.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2024, 05:46:36 PMQuote from: DGuller on April 16, 2024, 05:41:41 PMMy view is the same as it was before: I find the saying "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech" to be monumentally Orwellian. IMO, someone saying that and meaning it either has authoritarian mindset, or hasn't thought through the meaning of what that says to the end.
Lack of prohibitive consequences is exactly what freedom is. It is true that First Amendment only protects you from prohibitive consequences dished out by the government, but that doesn't mean that prohibitive consequences dished out by other entities holding power over you are something we should want more of. When people aren't free to say what they think, regardless of how that is accomplished, society suffers.
And I think the other side of the coin is the freedom to contract. Like all thoughts it's possible I haven't thought it through, but I don't think supporting the freedom to contract is authoritarian. Compelling me to continue to buy from a company who's employee I object to is authoritarian.
So again - some low-level accountant says something anti-semitic.
I'm not arguing for some law that says you must continue to use that accounting company, even though you have no contact with this person.
I'm just saying that as a culture we should treat people with respect, and consider that trying to force the company to have this guy fired by withholding your patronage probably makes you the bigger jerk than some anti-semitic accountant who said something stupid on Tic Toc.
Quote from: Barrister on April 16, 2024, 09:33:56 PMSo again - some low-level accountant says something anti-semitic.
I'm not arguing for some law that says you must continue to use that accounting company, even though you have no contact with this person.
I'm just saying that as a culture we should treat people with respect, and consider that trying to force the company to have this guy fired by withholding your patronage probably makes you the bigger jerk than some anti-semitic accountant who said something stupid on Tic Toc.
Fair enough.
How does ignoring antisemitic or racist remarks figure into the giving people basic respect idea? You want society to make the effort to not be influenced in dealings with a racist individual due to their racism but you do not expect the racist individual to show basic respect toward the race they openly agitate against.
I think cancel culture is destructive. It may seem benign to some people, but my impression is that it's often because the mob acts on views the person happens to share. That is not the general case though.
Quote from: Tamas on April 16, 2024, 11:14:26 PMHow does ignoring antisemitic or racist remarks figure into the giving people basic respect idea? You want society to make the effort to not be influenced in dealings with a racist individual due to their racism but you do not expect the racist individual to show basic respect toward the race they openly agitate against.
Well first of all:
Quote from: BarristerFinally "tolerate" doesn't mean "ignore" or "agree with". It's just you temper your response.
You teach the racist, the anti-semite, the misogynist, whomever respect - by showing respect to them.
I mean this isn't some brand new idea - it's the Golden Rule.
I tend to agree with the Brain and BB on this, even if I do get some visceral satisfaction from seeing people I dislike getting metaphorically whacked upside the head.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2024, 05:18:58 PMQuote from: Josquius on April 16, 2024, 04:10:26 PMIt was a theoretical of one extreme.
In this case it's a nobody who mentioned a silly conspiracy theory. Maybe once.?. No sign of her being utterly devoted to it. She even claims she misspoke.
Which one is it, a theoretical or an actual case?
Someone making a joke was a theoretical.
Some nobody mentioning an anti semitic conspiracy theory is in the actual article.
QuoteI don't know what you mean by "silly" conspiracy theory. I think they're all silly in that they ignore evidence. Do you mean harmless? As in, no possible harm could come from people thinking the Hamas kidnapping was a false flag operation?
If a large number of people start to believe this and it becomes a mainstream view encouraged by politicians and we add in some elements about domestic Jews too then it becomes potentially harmful.
When it's some randomer spouting nonsense about events in a far away land that nobody of note believes.... It's really not reached the level of pizzagate.
QuoteIf you treat this chick exactly as you would a Holocaust denier who says it maybe once? Showing no signs of being "utterly devoted" to it, then I've got no beef with you. I suspect your response to that would be different.
Not really.
Say something dumb online then you deserve to have people shout at you online.
If this Holocaust denier then said sorry, they misspoke, and clarifies that they accept the Holocaust was obviously real and went down as it did... Then they are forgiven.
They're still on a "watch list" of course. Future incidents of "misspeaking" will be dealt with in the context of what they said in the past.
But they're in no way in the same league as someone who basically makes offensive conspiracy nonsense their life and is completely unapologetic.
QuoteI don't know what you're talking about with cancelled before getting doxed. Theoretical or specific case?
It was in the article.
Who did these people getting doxed "cancel"?
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2024, 05:02:40 PM]
This seems irrelevant. Try again?
I don't think it's irrelevant at all.
Not all racism is the same.
There's a huge difference between those who are used to different words, now considered racist, and accidentally use them meaning no malice; and somebody who knows fine well they're being racist and thats their goal in setting out to cause harm.
Quote from: Josquius on April 17, 2024, 01:47:14 AMI don't think it's irrelevant at all.
Not all racism is the same.
There's a huge difference between those who are used to different words, now considered racist, and accidentally use them meaning no malice; and somebody who knows fine well they're being racist and thats their goal in setting out to cause harm.
Irrelevant as we weren't have a discussion about the most mild form of racism. Bringing up the most mild version feels like an attempt to shut down the conversation.
Quote from: Barrister on April 16, 2024, 09:28:12 PMBecause they are a person. They are one of God's creations. Because they deserve a certain level of respect.
Sure. I mean I don't believe in the Christian god but I generally politely let people prattle on about him without further comment. Despite, how as described in writings and basic logic of how he is stupposed to work, he sounds actively malevolent. Despite the fact that his followers previously used their Christianity to enslave people that look like me and in the current day, his adherents use their faith to legitimate their hatred for people who love like I do.
Quote from: Barrister on April 16, 2024, 09:28:12 PMAnd on some level out understand that. If you heard someone say something racist you wouldn't go beat the shit out of them (even if you could get away with it). You probably would say something to them.
I just think trying to get some nobody fired from their job if more like beating them up, and less like just saying something.
Losing a job is like being beaten up? :huh:
Quote from: Barrister on April 16, 2024, 09:28:12 PMThis racist uncle character - maybe he's supporting his wife, and maybe kids. He's got bills to pay. Who is it really helping to try and get him fired? And do you really think it'll make him less racist? Or maybe even more racist, but just less willing to say something in public.
I don't care if he is racist. It isn't my job to teach people not to be racist. And that's what you appear to be saying with 'You teach the racist, the anti-semite, the misogynist, whomever respect - by showing respect to them.' I'm just trying to live my life and it was luck of the draw that I ended up with a skin color that some people choose to go off about.
It isn't like it is hard to know that racism is wrong. That's why many times people will say 'I'm not being racist' and then go on to say something incredibly racist. I would have thought one positive out of the BLM protests was the idea that minorities should not have to bear the burden of educating others but that people can educate themselves.
I'm less concerned about the well being of the person who wants to say hurtful things (the person who wants to say racist shit with impunity) than I am about the people who are harmed by their racist antics.
If I had to assign blame/responsibility, I'd assign it first to the person who was saying the racist things. Then I'd put it on their friends/family/close community. After all, had those others not simply given 'a bunch of dirty looks' or been 'respectful' and let it pass, the racist would have already learned to stop saying racist shit.
Quote from: Barrister on April 16, 2024, 09:28:12 PMFinally "tolerate" doesn't mean "ignore" or "agree with". It's just you temper your response.
Yeah and getting fired is tempered and not anything like getting beaten up.
The answer is not 'oh, someone is saying something hateful about your group, just be respectful and eat that shit sandwich. that's how change happens.'
Quote from: Barrister on April 16, 2024, 11:32:22 PMQuote from: Tamas on April 16, 2024, 11:14:26 PMHow does ignoring antisemitic or racist remarks figure into the giving people basic respect idea? You want society to make the effort to not be influenced in dealings with a racist individual due to their racism but you do not expect the racist individual to show basic respect toward the race they openly agitate against.
Well first of all:
Quote from: BarristerFinally "tolerate" doesn't mean "ignore" or "agree with". It's just you temper your response.
You teach the racist, the anti-semite, the misogynist, whomever respect - by showing respect to them.
I mean this isn't some brand new idea - it's the Golden Rule.
Sounds like a lovely world you posit for racists. Say racist shit without impunity while the target of your invective should not only put up with it but be respectful.
Quote from: Jacob on April 17, 2024, 01:09:49 AMI tend to agree with the Brain and BB on this, even if I do get some visceral satisfaction from seeing people I dislike getting metaphorically whacked upside the head.
I mean this respectfully but this feels like a point of view born out of privilege.
Mob justice is often satisfying, but we try to avoid it for a reason.
Quote from: Threviel on April 17, 2024, 02:44:19 AMMob justice is often satisfying, but we try to avoid it for a reason.
https://justicecentres.go.ug/glossary/mob-justice/
???
Also, I thought the theory being advanced was in the vein of 'sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me' which is why people should just shine on when someone says something racist.
But now it is beyond the pale if several other people use their words to call for someone to be fired from their job because they think words can actually hurt? :hmm:
I am sorry but our society is choke full of societal peer pressure forcing behaviours. Some of these make it into law but most don't.
I mean, FFS, many offices have bloody dress codes. Nobody is up in arms about the freedom to wear flipflops to work, stopping that isn't tyranny, but being able to select what level of hateful dangerous asshatery you allow in the company you own, that is?
Come on guys.
Quote from: garbon on April 17, 2024, 02:24:05 AMQuote from: Josquius on April 17, 2024, 01:47:14 AMI don't think it's irrelevant at all.
Not all racism is the same.
There's a huge difference between those who are used to different words, now considered racist, and accidentally use them meaning no malice; and somebody who knows fine well they're being racist and thats their goal in setting out to cause harm.
Irrelevant as we weren't have a discussion about the most mild form of racism. Bringing up the most mild version feels like an attempt to shut down the conversation.
Its easier to show difference when speaking of extremes.
In the case being talked about you have people expressing solidarity with Palestine getting the same treatment as a raging committed anti semite.
The punishment should suit the scale of the crime.
You guys need to quit conflating being fired with concepts like "mob justice." Employers cannot, and should not, be required to employ people who would be a disruption to their business and even a potential harm to their customers. The idea that an employer who is a mental health therapy organization should be required to employ someone who is antisemitic and openly so, is absurd. No one would bat an eye if a similar org fired a guy who was on the local news saying "I hate n*ggers", imagine trying to book black patients with someone like that.
The first amendment can never be a restraint on non-governmental action.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 17, 2024, 07:23:44 AMYou guys need to quit conflating being fired with concepts like "mob justice." Employers cannot, and should not, be required to employ people who would be a disruption to their business and even a potential harm to their customers. The idea that an employer who is a mental health therapy organization should be required to employ someone who is antisemitic and openly so, is absurd. No one would bat an eye if a similar org fired a guy who was on the local news saying "I hate n*ggers", imagine trying to book black patients with someone like that.
The first amendment can never be a restraint on non-governmental action.
That isn't what we're talking about here though.
It isn't your employee is constantly going on about how much he hates Jewish people so he might be a threat to your Jewish clientele- not employing such a person is wise.
Its more this person said something that we have decided is anti-semitic so you better fire them OR ELSE.
The employer gets to make that decision. This isn't communist Europe.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 17, 2024, 09:00:35 AMThe employer gets to make that decision. This isn't communist Europe.
Except it isn't a decision they're making of their own free will when you've got a pressure group making noise about it.
Unless the employee is really special it just makes sense in anarchist America to cut off the funky looking mole on the off chance it possibly might be cancer.
No need to double check they actually are what the pressure group say they are.
If the intent really was for it to be the employers decision you'd inform them of the comments discretely without making a public song and dance about it.
They did make it of their own free will.
And most employers have codes about social media posting. No doubt at all that if we found out about one of our employers posting stuff like that online, they would be suspended and ultimately sacked irrespective if the wider world knew they were our employee. Our brand and reputation is far too important.
Quote from: Tamas on April 17, 2024, 05:19:15 AMI am sorry but our society is choke full of societal peer pressure forcing behaviours. Some of these make it into law but most don't.
I mean, FFS, many offices have bloody dress codes. Nobody is up in arms about the freedom to wear flipflops to work, stopping that isn't tyranny, but being able to select what level of hateful dangerous asshatery you allow in the company you own, that is?
Come on guys.
Isn't a dress code outside of work, on your personal time, a more apt analogy? I think people would indeed bat an eye if the employer says that you can't wear flip flops while vacationing on the beach. The speech that people are getting canned for presumably wasn't done at work.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 17, 2024, 09:09:05 AMThey did make it of their own free will.
"Eat the sandwich or I shoot your kid in the face."
You really think you chose to eat that sandwich under your own free will?
Quote from: garbon on April 17, 2024, 02:42:15 AMQuote from: Jacob on April 17, 2024, 01:09:49 AMI tend to agree with the Brain and BB on this, even if I do get some visceral satisfaction from seeing people I dislike getting metaphorically whacked upside the head.
I mean this respectfully but this feels like a point of view born out of privilege.
Quite possibly.
My point of view is mostly informed by the dynamics of social media rather than specifics of the transgression.
I don't believe I am in position of significant privilege when it comes to social media.
Quote from: Josquius on April 17, 2024, 09:53:06 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 17, 2024, 09:09:05 AMThey did make it of their own free will.
"Eat the sandwich or I shoot your kid in the face."
You really think you chose to eat that sandwich under your own free will?
Wait, what? Some is threating the employers children?
Quote from: Jacob on April 17, 2024, 10:02:31 AMQuote from: garbon on April 17, 2024, 02:42:15 AMQuote from: Jacob on April 17, 2024, 01:09:49 AMI tend to agree with the Brain and BB on this, even if I do get some visceral satisfaction from seeing people I dislike getting metaphorically whacked upside the head.
I mean this respectfully but this feels like a point of view born out of privilege.
Quite possibly.
My point of view is mostly informed by the dynamics of social media rather than specifics of the transgression.
I don't believe I am in position of significant privilege when it comes to social media.
But that's just it. I think the only way to evaluate is in the specifics of the transgression. And if the transgression is not targeted at one's own identity, it is easier to wave it by as not warranting any reaction.
Quote from: garbon on April 17, 2024, 11:16:28 AMBut that's just it. I think the only way to evaluate is in the specifics of the transgression. And if the transgression is not targeted at one's own identity, it is easier to wave it by as not warranting any reaction.
Yeah for sure.
Nonetheless, the dynamics by which one transgressor gets subjected to long term consequences while (most) others do not, often seemingly independently of the seriousness of the transgression, seems arbitrary and problematic to me.
I'll note here that I'm not speaking exclusively about social justice and political related topics but also things like (alleged) animal cruelty, crappy customer and other social behaviour, (alleged) petty crime, road rage, and the like.
That said the main driver of my current ambivalence on the topic is seeing how elements on both sides in the current Israel-Palestinian conflict are attempting (sometimes successfully) to deploy this kind of social media "fuck around and find out" consequence-visiting on their opponents. And since I'm not in a place where I have the moral conviction that "everyone on this side is evil, and everyone on that side stands with truth and justice sufficiently that whatever wrongs they commit are acceptable" I find that the problematic elements of the dynamic stand out much more starkly.
You can posit that that position is informed by privilege, but honestly I think it's more informed by the fact that I don't strongly identify with a side in this particular case and can see the humanity of most of the people involved (and maybe that's a privilege). Normally I do identify with one of the sides (and typically I believe we're on the same side in most things, privilege notwithstanding), and I'm reasonably prone to indulge in "and fuck you, and you... and you deserve what you got you fucker. This is justice being served and it's oh so satisfying", much like many people.
I'm with Jacob on this. The specifics may be different but I'm broadly in the same boat as him.
Quote from: Josquius on April 17, 2024, 09:53:06 AM"Eat the sandwich or I shoot your kid in the face."
You really think you chose to eat that sandwich under your own free will?
There is absolutely no reason to believe that Otto thinks the scenario you described does not constitute coercion. None whatsoever. The fact that you do indicates a massive failure of basic understanding.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2024, 12:25:48 PMQuote from: Josquius on April 17, 2024, 09:53:06 AM"Eat the sandwich or I shoot your kid in the face."
You really think you chose to eat that sandwich under your own free will?
There is absolutely no reason to believe that Otto thinks the scenario you described does not constitute coercion. None whatsoever. The fact that you do indicates a massive failure of basic understanding.
Except where he said in the cases we are talking about the employers made a free decision?
The position that cancel culture is a good thing is as valid as any other value judgment. If it is limited to situations where people who express views the person strongly disagrees with are cancelled though, then the position isn't really complete.
There are some similarities to criminal justice (similarities, they are not the same) where the conventional view is to prefer fair trials with a requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Such a system means that some murderers and active pedophiles will walk. Which is unfortunate, but you don't have such a system to protect murderers and active pedophiles (and other criminals). You have it to protect everyone else.
In the aftermath of the Civil War, the richest man in Finland came out against what he considered excessive executions and general poor treatment of the losing Reds. He was cancelled, emigrated and eventually killed himself. I don't view this as positive.
I haven't been cancelled myself, the closest I came was on a forum some years ago where there was a discussion about sexual abuse in the workplace. I said that to me it was unacceptable that an employer covers up sexual abuse in the workplace. This made me "a very bad person" who "should be blocked" and similar. On the plus side I did learn my lesson, I won't speak against sexual abuse in public again. And as I've mentioned before I won't defend democracy or freedom of speech under my own name in public anymore, because I don't want to get cancelled. Me and people like me shutting up and withdrawing from public discourse may be viewed as a positive or negative, but I think it's a negative.
I have encountered people who have said that people like me should go die. I do not want them to be cancelled for that. I think people daring to voice their opinion is a strength in society, not a weakness. I think attacking opinions is more constructive than attacking people.
Quote from: garbon on April 17, 2024, 02:40:07 AMQuote from: Barrister on April 16, 2024, 09:28:12 PMThis racist uncle character - maybe he's supporting his wife, and maybe kids. He's got bills to pay. Who is it really helping to try and get him fired? And do you really think it'll make him less racist? Or maybe even more racist, but just less willing to say something in public.
I don't care if he is racist. It isn't my job to teach people not to be racist. And that's what you appear to be saying with 'You teach the racist, the anti-semite, the misogynist, whomever respect - by showing respect to them.' I'm just trying to live my life and it was luck of the draw that I ended up with a skin color that some people choose to go off about.
It isn't like it is hard to know that racism is wrong. That's why many times people will say 'I'm not being racist' and then go on to say something incredibly racist. I would have thought one positive out of the BLM protests was the idea that minorities should not have to bear the burden of educating others but that people can educate themselves.
No, it's not your job to do anything.
But let's go back to the example - someone says they hate black people online, and then anti-racism activists find out where this guy works and pressure the company to fire them. These activists certainly *do* think it's their job to do something.
I'm saying that demanding a stupid person be fired over saying something stupid online is not effective, does nothing to lessen the presence of racism in the world, and now gets this guy to portray himself as a victim.
Quote from: Josquius on April 17, 2024, 02:17:07 PMExcept where he said in the cases we are talking about the employers made a free decision?
And in none of those cases did anyone point a gun at their head. They might have eaten a sandwich, but it wasn't reported.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2024, 02:40:14 PMQuote from: Josquius on April 17, 2024, 02:17:07 PMExcept where he said in the cases we are talking about the employers made a free decision?
And in none of those cases did anyone point a gun at their head. They might have eaten a sandwich, but it wasn't reported.
It's called an analogy.
It often helps to spell out the problem out in simpler and more straight forward terms.
I do note I haven't got an answer on this.
What we did have was a pretty clear threat to a business not from the person employed but from those shouting about them being anti semites.
The core point is that a business should not be required to employ someone who harms their business, it really isn't controversial.
Maybe it is "mean" for a group to specialize in making businesses aware that they employ such people, and publicizing the facts, but the business is not wrong for acting. And frankly, these people the StopAntisemitism group are going after have done much to deserve their being publicized. You don't need to express views like that on social media or in public.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 17, 2024, 02:52:31 PMThe core point is that a business should not be required to employ someone who harms their business, it really isn't controversial.
Maybe it is "mean" for a group to specialize in making businesses aware that they employ such people, and publicizing the facts, but the business is not wrong for acting. And frankly, these people the StopAntisemitism group are going after have done much to deserve their being publicized. You don't need to express views like that on social media or in public.
Except that's not the factor here.
It's that the business is under attack with the claim that it is employing an anti semite.
Whether the person actually is a raging anti semite or simply someone pro Palestinian who attracted the ire of pro Israel zealots is irrelevant.
The business is best served by erring on the side of caution and just sacking the person rather than attracting the hate of organised well funded zealots itself.
This is entirely intentional in this manner of working. The business has no rational choice in the matter. It's all very public.
Even if they accept that the person has been misquoted and is in no way an anti semite, it's a problem they cour do without.
Quite a different situation to a business owner themselves finding an employee saying something that could be taken as anti semitic without it attracting the attention of campaigners. There they would have an actual choice.
And, what is your remedy? Prohibit businesses from deciding who gets to work for them? Prohibiting private citizens on choosing to publicize things? This is America. We have a first amendment. We have property rights. Our government doesn't decide what we can talk about like they do in Canada or Britain, even if it really bothers specific people.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 17, 2024, 03:02:58 PMAnd, what is your remedy? Prohibit businesses from deciding who gets to work for them? Prohibiting private citizens on choosing to publicize things? This is America. We have a first amendment. We have property rights. Our government doesn't decide what we can talk about like they do in Canada or Britain, even if it really bothers specific people.
I have no idea what the cure for social media is.
As I've said before I do think China had one thing right in tying real IDs to social media accounts.
There really needs to be decent coverage of this kind of shit highlighting groups that operate in bad faith and fuck with the lives of the undeserving.
That done maybe as social media becomes less and less the wild west maybe businesses can once again be free to make decisions.
Also more employee rights are an obvious requirement. Give them scope to appeal and get compensation if they're the victim of unjust targeted harassment.
This would make employers actually check if the claims are valid or not rather than just taking the easy way out.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 17, 2024, 02:52:31 PMThe core point is that a business should not be required to employ someone who harms their business, it really isn't controversial.
Maybe it is "mean" for a group to specialize in making businesses aware that they employ such people, and publicizing the facts, but the business is not wrong for acting. And frankly, these people the StopAntisemitism group are going after have done much to deserve their being publicized. You don't need to express views like that on social media or in public.
Yes, it is up to the business who they employ.
But most of the time this social media pressure tactics isn't doing anything to actually harm their business. It's just that day's story on Twitter. Companies could easily afford to wait it out.
Remember it's not always going to be people you dislike getting fired.
Anonymous communication is an ancient and sacrosanct thing. Many of the U.S. Founding Fathers wrote some of their most important things under nom de plume's like Publius.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 17, 2024, 03:08:41 PMAnonymous communication is an ancient and sacrosanct thing. Many of the U.S. Founding Fathers wrote some of their most important things under nom de plume's like Publius.
Writing a book is quite a different thing to having the ability to send continuous coordinated directly targeted hate to anyone you and your friends decide is worth it.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 17, 2024, 03:08:41 PMAnonymous communication is an ancient and sacrosanct thing. Many of the U.S. Founding Fathers wrote some of their most important things under nom de plume's like Publius.
Public communication is also very different. It used to be you could say something on the streetcorner and everyone within earshot would hear you. Now you can say it on Twitter and potentially millions will see it.
Anonymous communication also used to appear quite shady. I don't know about revolutionary times, but 30 years ago it was all a world of photocopied underground magazines or trash books like The Turner Novels or the Unabomber manifesto. Now of course anonymous posters can have tremendous influence (think Q drops, or Catturd2).
We're all trying to navigate a world where how we communicate is very different from the past.
Quote from: Josquius on April 17, 2024, 02:48:23 PMWhat we did have was a pretty clear threat to a business not from the person employed but from those shouting about them being anti semites.
What were they threatening to do?
Quote from: Jacob on April 17, 2024, 12:05:22 PMQuote from: garbon on April 17, 2024, 11:16:28 AMBut that's just it. I think the only way to evaluate is in the specifics of the transgression. And if the transgression is not targeted at one's own identity, it is easier to wave it by as not warranting any reaction.
Yeah for sure.
Nonetheless, the dynamics by which one transgressor gets subjected to long term consequences while (most) others do not, often seemingly independently of the seriousness of the transgression, seems arbitrary and problematic to me.
I'll note here that I'm not speaking exclusively about social justice and political related topics but also things like (alleged) animal cruelty, crappy customer and other social behaviour, (alleged) petty crime, road rage, and the like.
That said the main driver of my current ambivalence on the topic is seeing how elements on both sides in the current Israel-Palestinian conflict are attempting (sometimes successfully) to deploy this kind of social media "fuck around and find out" consequence-visiting on their opponents. And since I'm not in a place where I have the moral conviction that "everyone on this side is evil, and everyone on that side stands with truth and justice sufficiently that whatever wrongs they commit are acceptable" I find that the problematic elements of the dynamic stand out much more starkly.
You can posit that that position is informed by privilege, but honestly I think it's more informed by the fact that I don't strongly identify with a side in this particular case and can see the humanity of most of the people involved (and maybe that's a privilege). Normally I do identify with one of the sides (and typically I believe we're on the same side in most things, privilege notwithstanding), and I'm reasonably prone to indulge in "and fuck you, and you... and you deserve what you got you fucker. This is justice being served and it's oh so satisfying", much like many people.
It would be so much easier if the person looked like this
(https://i.imgur.com/RQPvidF.jpeg)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2024, 03:26:41 PMQuote from: Josquius on April 17, 2024, 02:48:23 PMWhat we did have was a pretty clear threat to a business not from the person employed but from those shouting about them being anti semites.
What were they threatening to do?
Threats don't have to be explicit to be worrying.
Back when I had fascists threatening my family it was never explitilcy saying anyone would get hurt. Just they'd be seeing me around, if my parents still lived in such and such address, I better be careful with what I say, etc...
For a business little things can hurt. They make a lot of noise about how it's in line with anti semites, no doubt leading to review bombing and all manner of other petty sabotage that really adds up.
Quote from: Josquius on April 18, 2024, 01:18:04 AMThreats don't have to be explicit to be worrying.
Back when I had fascists threatening my family it was never explitilcy saying anyone would get hurt. Just they'd be seeing me around, if my parents still lived in such and such address, I better be careful with what I say, etc...
For a business little things can hurt. They make a lot of noise about how it's in line with anti semites, no doubt leading to review bombing and all manner of other petty sabotage that really adds up.
So you think they were implicitly threatening bad Yelp reviews. Ok.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2024, 01:57:58 AMQuote from: Josquius on April 18, 2024, 01:18:04 AMThreats don't have to be explicit to be worrying.
Back when I had fascists threatening my family it was never explitilcy saying anyone would get hurt. Just they'd be seeing me around, if my parents still lived in such and such address, I better be careful with what I say, etc...
For a business little things can hurt. They make a lot of noise about how it's in line with anti semites, no doubt leading to review bombing and all manner of other petty sabotage that really adds up.
So you think they were implicitly threatening bad Yelp reviews. Ok.
Thats the least of it. And this kind of thing can have a huge impact on a business.
When its a simple matter to just kneejerk fire somebody at the slightest hint negative attention could be coming your way, then you'll do it.
Quote from: Josquius on April 18, 2024, 02:43:47 AMThats the least of it. And this kind of thing can have a huge impact on a business.
When its a simple matter to just kneejerk fire somebody at the slightest hint negative attention could be coming your way, then you'll do it.
This exchange has made me realize something that I had not before. I had thought before that free will and coercion were a dychotomy. Now I realize it's a continium.
That being said, potential loss of business still falls on the side of free will for me. Loss of customers is a normal part of business. You respond however you want.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2024, 04:28:34 AMQuote from: Josquius on April 18, 2024, 02:43:47 AMThats the least of it. And this kind of thing can have a huge impact on a business.
When its a simple matter to just kneejerk fire somebody at the slightest hint negative attention could be coming your way, then you'll do it.
This exchange has made me realize something that I had not before. I had thought before that free will and coercion were a dychotomy. Now I realize it's a continium.
That being said, potential loss of business still falls on the side of free will for me. Loss of customers is a normal part of business. You respond however you want.
As said I do think the difference is between is it the person themselves being a problem or is it people who have decided they're a problem.
You have a worker who has a habit of shouting the n word at people- yeah...better fire him. Thats just good business practice.
You could say its a no brainer and there's no real choice there, but it is still your free will in firing him.
On the other hand you've somebody who seems fine but who a group on the internet have decided they really don't like and claim is an anti-semite with minimal out of context proof...then its their push which is far more behind this than any potential risk of the worker mistreating Jewish customers.
Its still down to you to pull the trigger. But the consequences of not doing so are completely out of your control. You can't just sit down with the worker and get them to apologise and promise not to say any offensive words going forward as you might have had a chance with the first guy. The wheels are in motion with the pressure group.
As you say free will is a continuum and not a black and white thing. But I'd say the more abstracted something gets from the reality on the ground the more free will is removed .
If the person had been filmed saying derogatory things about Blacks or Trans or Muslims Josq would be totally fine with them getting fired. But the anti-Jewish stuff hits to close to home.
I'm sure it can be framed as not anti-semitic in the same manner that, for example, claiming that women should feel safe on toilets is not anti-trans...
Lots of ink has been spilled on indirect racism, classism, misogyny and whatever, on how, for example, gerrymandering is sometimes racist due to it often disadvantaging african-american voters in the south. It can be defended, because on the surface it's not at all racist, but in practice, well...
The same obviously holds true for anti-semitism as we can see everywhere in this discussion. Sure, it's indirect and can be defended as not anti-semitism, but, well...
Edit: Which is not to say that Jos is an anti-semite, this is not an accusation on him.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2024, 07:00:21 AMIf the person had been filmed saying derogatory things about Blacks or Trans or Muslims Josq would be totally fine with them getting fired. But the anti-Jewish stuff hits to close to home.
Please don't be an absolute trash level moron.
You're perfectly demonstrating the core problem here. This "Oh, you think Palestinians deserve human rights? Then you must hate Jews!" leap of the logical grand canyon many are prone to doing.
It doesn't matter what the targeted group is. Slipping up and saying dumb shit once shouldn't lead to you being branded as utterly beyond the pale and deserving of anything coming your way.
With intentional repeat offenders spewing conspiracy theories and hate day after day? Have at it. Tell their boss. There's good reason to believe this might actually be in thir employer's best interest anyway.
Somebody said something which out of context you can screenshot to make it look like they hate Mexican people? The people leaping on this kind of thing are absolute scum.
Quote from: Josquius on April 18, 2024, 07:43:18 AMQuote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2024, 07:00:21 AMIf the person had been filmed saying derogatory things about Blacks or Trans or Muslims Josq would be totally fine with them getting fired. But the anti-Jewish stuff hits to close to home.
Please don't be an absolute trash level moron.
You're perfectly demonstrating the core problem here. This "Oh, you think Palestinians deserve human rights? Then you must hate Jews!" leap of the logical grand canyon many are prone to doing.
It doesn't matter what the targeted group is. Slipping up and saying dumb shit once shouldn't lead to you being branded as utterly beyond the pale and deserving of anything coming your way.
With intentional repeat offenders spewing conspiracy theories and hate day after day? Have at it. Tell their boss. There's good reason to believe this might actually be in thir employer's best interest anyway.
Somebody said something which out of context you can screenshot to make it look like they hate Mexican people? The people leaping on this kind of thing are absolute scum.
Yeah, I hear the same thing with right all the time. Oh it was out of context, it was only said once! Leave it for Fox News. When this happened to people who threatened to call the police on black people in the park, nobody here had a problem. When this happens to people who defended Hamas, something you said didn't happen in the West, you suddenly have a problem with it.
Remember the hated response to the Metoo movement? #NotallMen Well this is #Notallantizionists
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2024, 08:00:45 AMYeah, I hear the same thing with right all the time. Oh it was out of context, it was only said once! Leave it for Fox News. When this happened to people who threatened to call the police on black people in the park, nobody here had a problem. When this happens to people who defended Hamas, something you said didn't happen in the West, you suddenly have a problem with it.
Remember the hated response to the Metoo movement? #NotallMen Well this is #Notallantizionists
You hear it all the time and you don't believe it is ever true?
Don't you think that maybe the reason people often lie with that excuse is because it lets them try to blend in with those who are genuinely innocent and just slipped up once?
And you don't think maybe there's a difference between a line of text being taken out of context or signing a petition against a war, and a lengthy recorded exchange where someone made quite clear that yes, they disapprove of black people in the park?
Note most of these cases were not people defending Hamas at all.
I'm not particularly impressed when the far right makes those statements, no. And let's be honest, you aren't either. The two cases we were discussing were about defending Hamas. The difference between not wanting black people in the park and not wanting Jewish people in the Middle East is because one is left and one is right.
The two people in the article were defending Hamas. One was tearing down posters because they said that Hamas were terrorists which she felt was just propaganda, and the other one said we need to "stop apologizing for Hamas"
Quote from: Josquius on April 18, 2024, 06:54:01 AMAs said I do think the difference is between is it the person themselves being a problem or is it people who have decided they're a problem.
You have a worker who has a habit of shouting the n word at people- yeah...better fire him. Thats just good business practice.
You could say its a no brainer and there's no real choice there, but it is still your free will in firing him.
On the other hand you've somebody who seems fine but who a group on the internet have decided they really don't like and claim is an anti-semite with minimal out of context proof...then its their push which is far more behind this than any potential risk of the worker mistreating Jewish customers.
Its still down to you to pull the trigger. But the consequences of not doing so are completely out of your control. You can't just sit down with the worker and get them to apologise and promise not to say any offensive words going forward as you might have had a chance with the first guy. The wheels are in motion with the pressure group.
As you say free will is a continuum and not a black and white thing. But I'd say the more abstracted something gets from the reality on the ground the more free will is removed .
Okey dokey. So your principle is: if it's a habit, fire him or her. If it's not a habit, then they seem fine and one video is minimal out of context proof and they should not be fired.
So for example these guys seem fine and there is minimal out of context proof and they should not be fired.
Correct?
"That's offensive to black people"
"No, it isn't"
"Why don't we let black people decide what is offensive to them"
"Okay, that makes sense"
"That's offensive to LGBTQ people"
"No, it isn't"
"Why don't we let LGBTQ people decide what is offensive to them"
"Okay, that makes sense"
"That's offensive to Jewish people"
"No, it isn't"
"Why don't we let Jewish people decide what is offensive to them"
"Fuck you, Jew"
Israel has struck targets in Iran, reports right now suggest Isfahan, but details sketchy.
Yeah, I've seen reports that they've hit the main nuclear site and an air force base.
Not good.
Jerusalem Post (developping story) (https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-797866)
Explosions in Syria, Iran and Iraq.
QuoteAn Israeli missile strike targeted a site in Iran early Friday morning, according to ABC News. The report came shortly after local sources reported explosions in Isfahan in central Iran, in the As-Suwayda Governorate of southern Syria, and in the Baghdad area and Babil Governorate of Iraq early Friday morning.
It's still a few hours before I can go to the petrol station, would appreciate a bit of a delay to Armageddon, thanks.
Quote"That's offensive to black people"
"No, it isn't"
"Why don't we let black people decide what is offensive to them"
"Okay, that makes sense"
"That's offensive to LGBTQ people"
"No, it isn't"
"Why don't we let LGBTQ people decide what is offensive to them"
"Okay, that makes sense"
"That's offensive to Jewish people"
"No, it isn't"
"Why don't we let Jewish people decide what is offensive to them"
"Fuck you, Jew"
And many Jewish people have said speaking against Israeli behaviour is not anti-semitic no matter how some might try to twist that definition.
QuoteI'm not particularly impressed when the far right makes those statements, no. And let's be honest, you aren't either. The two cases we were discussing were about defending Hamas. The difference between not wanting black people in the park and not wanting Jewish people in the Middle East is because one is left and one is right.
The two people in the article were defending Hamas. One was tearing down posters because they said that Hamas were terrorists which she felt was just propaganda, and the other one said we need to "stop apologizing for Hamas"
I would apply the same reasoning for racism, transphobia, or whatever it might be.
No matter what the far right themselves might want everyone to think, its not a case of use the wrong word once and you're forever damned- though there definitely are those out there who practice this behaviour.
And again lack of context is showing on those quotes.
Saying you shouldn't apologise for Hamas is not at all the same thing as saying Hamas are great.
I've seen this kind of phrase quite a lot over the years actually, though not about Hamas- more typical would be "Muslims shouldn't apologise for Al Quaida"- this doesn't necessarily mean they think Al Quaida (/Hamas) are fine. It means they find issue with the idea that Al Quaida somehow represent muslims and that muslims should therefore always be on the defence and having to apologise for them.
I've ran into this shit on this very thread. I think the Palestinians deserve freedom and basic human rights- ergo I'm an anti-semitic Hamas lover. No. I will not defend Hamas. That's irrelevant to what I stand for.
As to tearing down posters- I haven't seen these posters. Its pretty standard for quite despicable groups to use on the surface perfectly innocent and acceptable messaging. Look for instance to the far right's anti-paedophilia messaging. Who could possibly disagree with that?....except when its all a load of conspiracy fuelled dog whistles.
In this particular case further context is provided with this being the same person spreading the conspiracy theories; which again helps to build up a overall picture.
But then her explanation that banging on about Hamas is a tactic to minimise Palestinian rights also adds context the other way.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2024, 05:17:53 PMQuote from: Josquius on April 18, 2024, 06:54:01 AMAs said I do think the difference is between is it the person themselves being a problem or is it people who have decided they're a problem.
You have a worker who has a habit of shouting the n word at people- yeah...better fire him. Thats just good business practice.
You could say its a no brainer and there's no real choice there, but it is still your free will in firing him.
On the other hand you've somebody who seems fine but who a group on the internet have decided they really don't like and claim is an anti-semite with minimal out of context proof...then its their push which is far more behind this than any potential risk of the worker mistreating Jewish customers.
Its still down to you to pull the trigger. But the consequences of not doing so are completely out of your control. You can't just sit down with the worker and get them to apologise and promise not to say any offensive words going forward as you might have had a chance with the first guy. The wheels are in motion with the pressure group.
As you say free will is a continuum and not a black and white thing. But I'd say the more abstracted something gets from the reality on the ground the more free will is removed .
Okey dokey. So your principle is: if it's a habit, fire him or her. If it's not a habit, then they seem fine and one video is minimal out of context proof and they should not be fired.
So for example these guys seem fine and there is minimal out of context proof and they should not be fired.
Correct?
I'd put one out of context video beneath a continuous display of behaviour in the ranking of bad shit, but still ahead of one random out of context tweet.
In a video of someone being a dick for several minutes you've a lot more contextual clarity. Also the factor of this behaviour being displayed in public boosts how concerning it is over random internet posts.
Quote from: Josquius on April 19, 2024, 05:36:46 AMQuote"That's offensive to black people"
"No, it isn't"
"Why don't we let black people decide what is offensive to them"
"Okay, that makes sense"
"That's offensive to LGBTQ people"
"No, it isn't"
"Why don't we let LGBTQ people decide what is offensive to them"
"Okay, that makes sense"
"That's offensive to Jewish people"
"No, it isn't"
"Why don't we let Jewish people decide what is offensive to them"
"Fuck you, Jew"
And many Jewish people have said speaking against Israeli behaviour is not anti-semitic no matter how some might try to twist that definition.
But that holds true for all those examples, that not all the supposedly offensed feel offensed and that counter-examples are easy to find.
Quote from: Threviel on April 19, 2024, 06:21:48 AMQuote from: Josquius on April 19, 2024, 05:36:46 AMQuote"That's offensive to black people"
"No, it isn't"
"Why don't we let black people decide what is offensive to them"
"Okay, that makes sense"
"That's offensive to LGBTQ people"
"No, it isn't"
"Why don't we let LGBTQ people decide what is offensive to them"
"Okay, that makes sense"
"That's offensive to Jewish people"
"No, it isn't"
"Why don't we let Jewish people decide what is offensive to them"
"Fuck you, Jew"
And many Jewish people have said speaking against Israeli behaviour is not anti-semitic no matter how some might try to twist that definition.
But that holds true for all those examples, that not all the supposedly offensed feel offensed and that counter-examples are easy to find.
True. People like Candice Owens exist for every group.
But they're a tiny minority, no matter how much the right likes to inflate their numbers, and usually found very much stepping outside of the mainstream media for their group, instead rubbing shoulders with 'the enemy'.
Jewish people saying criticism of Israel and anti-semitism are not the same thing are a widespread mainstream however and long have they been fighting this attempt to conflate the two from the Israeli-right.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/mar/07/debunking-myth-that-anti-zionism-is-antisemitic
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/mar/20/jonathan-glazer-speech-jewish-groups-defense
That's an opinion piece and a celebrity...
Poster in question
(https://i.imgur.com/IKdOdPP.jpeg)
QuoteThat's an opinion piece and a celebrity...
So they're only Jewish people when they're banging the Israel uber alles drum?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2024, 07:22:47 AMPoster in question
(https://i.imgur.ceg)
Yes. It is typical of the appeal to the heart "how could anyone possibly disagree with this?" tactics the far right like to use.
You need to think critically here about its purpose.
(incidentally, irrelevant to the point but the Israelis killed this baby, along with many others)
Quote from: Josquius on April 19, 2024, 07:24:37 AMYes. It is typical of the appeal to the heart "how could anyone possibly disagree with this?" tactics the far right like to use.
You need to think critically here about its purpose.
(incidentally, irrelevant to the point but the Israelis killed this baby, along with many others)
:huh:
Dude.
Quote from: Josquius on April 19, 2024, 07:24:37 AMQuoteThat's an opinion piece and a celebrity...
So they're only Jewish people when they're banging the Israel uber alles drum?
As I said, it's trivially easy to find opinion pieces and celebrities on all sides of the examples above. It gives no weight what so ever to your argument, rather the opposite.
Quote:huh:
Dude.
Dude?
Quote from: Threviel on April 19, 2024, 07:35:43 AMQuote from: Josquius on April 19, 2024, 07:24:37 AMQuoteThat's an opinion piece and a celebrity...
So they're only Jewish people when they're banging the Israel uber alles drum?
As I said, it's trivially easy to find opinion pieces and celebrities on all sides of the examples above. It gives no weight what so ever to your argument, rather the opposite.
Really? It proves anti zionism and anti semitism are the same thing when you have the editor of a prominent long running Jewish magazine, the Auschwitz Memorial, the Jewish Voice for Peace (containing many prominent American Jews on its board) defending the stance that they aren't?
As said, why don't we let Jewish people decide what is offensive for them?
One editor is not the spokesperson for all Jews.
https://people.com/movies/harry-potter-actor-robbie-coltrane-defends-j-k-rowlings-comments-about-trans-people/ (https://people.com/movies/harry-potter-actor-robbie-coltrane-defends-j-k-rowlings-comments-about-trans-people/)
Apparently Robbie Coltrane does not find J K Rowling offensive, by Jos logic that proves that she's not offensive because some celebrity said so. Someone with more time could probably dig up some trans person defending her so we can conclusively prove she's not offensive.
Quote from: Josquius on April 19, 2024, 07:24:37 AMQuote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2024, 07:22:47 AMPoster in question
(https://i.imgur.ceg)
Yes. It is typical of the appeal to the heart "how could anyone possibly disagree with this?" tactics the far right like to use.
You need to think critically here about its purpose.
(incidentally, irrelevant to the point but the Israelis killed this baby, along with many others)
Yeah, so what are the conspiracy dog-whistles here. I must have missed them.
QuoteYeah, so what are the conspiracy dog-whistles here. I must have missed them.
"Look at this poor baby kidnapped by those villainous Gazans. They deserve everything coming their way. If you speak up in defence of Palestinians then you want this baby to be raped!" (very skilful typesetting the way they subtly put that word in a key position there) "Only by supporting Israel whatever they do can we bring the hostages home!"
Quote from: Threviel on April 19, 2024, 07:44:02 AMOne editor is not the spokesperson for all Jews.
You have no trouble believing this with these people saying anti zionism and anti semitism are not the same yet where you get people saying they are the same you have no trouble taking them as the spokesperson for all Jews?
Quotehttps://people.com/movies/harry-potter-actor-robbie-coltrane-defends-j-k-rowlings-comments-about-trans-people/
Apparently Robbie Coltrane does not find J K Rowling offensive, by Jos logic that proves that she's not offensive because some celebrity said so. Someone with more time could probably dig up some trans person defending her so we can conclusively prove she's not offensive.
Robbie Coltrane was trans? When did that happen?
No offense to them but...they didn't pass.
My point was that anecdotal evidence is no evidence.
Most of these issues where there's a discussion about whether something is offensive or a hate crime or whatever needs context. Not everyone that criticizes Israel is an anti-semite and criticizing Israel is not anti-semitic in and off itself. But, oh boy, there's a gigantic amount of anti-semitism that hides behind this mantra.
Quote from: Threviel on April 19, 2024, 08:12:19 AMMy point was that anecdotal evidence is no evidence.
Except where it backs up your chosen side it seems.
The number of Jewish people criticising Israel is just on a completely different level to black, lgbt, whatever, folks aligning themselves with the culture warriors kicking their group.
QuoteMost of these issues where there's a discussion about whether something is offensive or a hate crime or whatever needs context. Not everyone that criticizes Israel is an anti-semite and criticizing Israel is not anti-semitic in and off itself. But, oh boy, there's a gigantic amount of anti-semitism that hides behind this mantra.
Of course, there's a venn which has a overlap, but its not at all the near circle that black people who think white folk saying the N word is wrong is.
Quote from: Josquius on April 19, 2024, 08:15:39 AMOf course, there's a venn which has a overlap, but its not at all the near circle that black people who think white folk saying the N word is wrong is.
That Coltrane thing was quite obviously a parody of you and not at all serious.
I think you are right here, but the N-word is the most extreme example, or close to it. Far different with other examples.
Quote from: Josquius on April 19, 2024, 08:07:14 AMQuoteYeah, so what are the conspiracy dog-whistles here. I must have missed them.
"Look at this poor baby kidnapped by those villainous Gazans. They deserve everything coming their way. If you speak up in defence of Palestinians then you want this baby to be raped!" (very skilful typesetting the way they subtly put that word in a key position there) "Only by supporting Israel whatever they do can we bring the hostages home!"
Okay, so how would you draw attention to the plight of the kidnapped and the horrible crimes of Hamas?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2024, 08:38:19 AMQuote from: Josquius on April 19, 2024, 08:07:14 AMQuoteYeah, so what are the conspiracy dog-whistles here. I must have missed them.
"Look at this poor baby kidnapped by those villainous Gazans. They deserve everything coming their way. If you speak up in defence of Palestinians then you want this baby to be raped!" (very skilful typesetting the way they subtly put that word in a key position there) "Only by supporting Israel whatever they do can we bring the hostages home!"
Okay, so how would you draw attention to the plight of the kidnapped and the horrible crimes of Hamas?
I'd question whether this even needs doing. This message has been ran on a loop in the news and in the government for the past 6 months.
Hamas are bad.
Wow.
You think?
The plight of the Palestinian civilians now.... Not only is it getting less attention overall from many circles but if you try and adjust for the numbers of people suffering it's insanely underreported.
Wow Josq you keep going you are going to make Viper sound closer to Raz than you.
Quote from: Josquius on April 19, 2024, 08:43:11 AMQuote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2024, 08:38:19 AMQuote from: Josquius on April 19, 2024, 08:07:14 AMQuoteYeah, so what are the conspiracy dog-whistles here. I must have missed them.
"Look at this poor baby kidnapped by those villainous Gazans. They deserve everything coming their way. If you speak up in defence of Palestinians then you want this baby to be raped!" (very skilful typesetting the way they subtly put that word in a key position there) "Only by supporting Israel whatever they do can we bring the hostages home!"
Okay, so how would you draw attention to the plight of the kidnapped and the horrible crimes of Hamas?
I'd question whether this even needs doing. This message has been ran on a loop in the news and in the government for the past 6 months.
Hamas are bad.
Wow.
You think?
The plight of the Palestinian civilians now.... Not only is it getting less attention overall from many circles but if you try and adjust for the numbers of people suffering it's insanely underreported.
Seems lots of people aren't convinced that Hamas is bad. You know, like the lady who tore down the poster. The plight of Palestinians has been on the news 24/7 for six months.
Sounds like "The Palestinians deserve human rights" is another "appeal to the heart". Who could disagree with that? We have to eradicate the Zionists entity, to preserve those rights. Anyone who disagrees is a racist.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2024, 09:16:27 AMSeems lots of people aren't convinced that Hamas is bad. You know, like the lady who tore down the poster.
Yes. Thats the only possible reason for disagreeing with pro-IDF propaganda. You actually think Hamas are great.
QuoteThe plight of Palestinians has been on the news 24/7 for six months.
It depends on your source.
I expect Al Jazeira don't really mention the hostages much at all and speak a lot about the Palestinian suffering.
With the BBC you get a fairly equal weighting in terms of time and attention, slight slant towards the Palestinian situation but then there's a lot more news to be had there. That Hamas attacked and took hostages who are still unaccoutned for however is never unmentioned for long.
I expect with Fox News and its worse analogues the fact that civilians are dying in Gaza doesn't really get a mention. The hostages are all that matter. This seems to be the dominant attitude with way too many.
QuoteSounds like "The Palestinians deserve human rights" is another "appeal to the heart". Who could disagree with that?
Not really.
A comparable tactic from the other side would be those stories about individual kids subjected to horrors kids should never have to experience at the hands of the IDF. These stories do exist. But more generally its the shittiness of the whole situation and the numbers at risk that you see.
QuoteWe have to eradicate the Zionists entity, to preserve those rights. Anyone who disagrees is a racist.
Switch one word there and thats your stance, not mine.
Quote from: Tamas on April 19, 2024, 08:45:13 AMWow Josq you keep going you are going to make Viper sound closer to Raz than you.
If you disagree actually disagree instead of just flinging insults.
QuoteIf you disagree actually disagree instead of just flinging insults.
After 245 pages I have said everything I am going to say. Besides, what is to argue with statements like there's no need to talk about the hostages because too much have been talked about them as opposed to the Gazans? (I wonder if you made a comparison of, say, number of Guardian articles on each, how much that'd stand up)
Or that consider the motivations of those calling for hostages to be freed? Or that that hostage kid was killed by Israel anyways so who cares?
This is some incredibly low-sunk stuff.
Quote from: Tamas on April 19, 2024, 09:48:21 AMQuoteIf you disagree actually disagree instead of just flinging insults.
After 245 pages I have said everything I am going to say. Besides, what is to argue with statements like there's no need to talk about the hostages because too much have been talked about them as opposed to the Gazans?
I never said that.
I disagreed with the idea that there needs to be a special effort to attract attention to their plight.
We, and more importantly those who can actually do something about it, are well aware. The current course of action is (on the surface at least) all about that at the expense of all else.
QuoteOr that consider the motivations of those calling for hostages to be freed?
Exactly. Its not just the surface message that matters. Its the motivations of those using it.
QuoteOr that that hostage kid was killed by Israel anyways so who cares?
Convenient that a death doesn't matter if its at the hands of the Israeli military.
QuoteConvenient that a death doesn't matter if its at the hands of the Israeli military.
Convenient that if a hostage dies in an attempt to free them its not the hostage taker's fault.
But I am not going to rejoin this hateful madness you, Raz, Viper and Otto are dancing in.
You can see from this thread how easily people can be riled up to have absolutely abhorent views and declarations.
The US vetoes full membership for Palestine in the UN.
Biden Administration continues its performative attacks on Israel, it appears to be imminently planning to sanction an IDF unit under the Leahy Law, and has several other IDF units under investigation.
Firstly, I think the Leahy Law is bad policy. A State Department panel should have no say in sanctioning individual military units of other countries (they were also, stupidly, investigating an Australian unit for things it did in Afghanistan years ago.) It should largely be up to the President to make an executive decision on sanctioning other countries--and while it would be within his power to only sanction individual units, I think individual unit sanctions are performative and stupid. If you really think some foreign military needs sanctions, then the whole military should be sanctioned. (Also what just stops the IDF from disbanding a sanctioned unit and distributing its members to other units etc? Stupid law.)
Secondly--like a lot of things with Biden undermining Israel (like letting the UN's antisemitic and hateful ceasefire resolution pass), a lot of you are going to say "this is nothing, not a big deal etc." Some of you think I am overreacting or trolling etc.
What you completely miss is the longstanding campaign to delegitimize Israel. Other countries take America's lead, and the more Biden flirts with playing the delegitimacy game, the worse it gets.
Britain is mostly filled with antisemites, and it is likely Labour will be very anti-Israel, one of the last Western countries that is not extremely anti-Israel.
Young progressives in America are almost antisemitic to a one, and are pushing to make the Dems just another anti-Israel bloc, meaning going forward every election in America will be one for Israel's possible survival. The 50 or so hateful Muslim nations have "stacked the deck" in international relations against Israel.
European governments have fully embraced antisemitism and anti-Zionism due to a combination of a) desire to curry favor with Muslim trading partners, b) desire to curry favor with violent Muslims that Europe has been importing into their countries for years and c) desire to curry favor with far leftist antisemites that are entrenched throughout the world wide leftist movement.
The U.S. is really the last vanguard against Israel being turned into apartheid South Africa, which will put Israel on a long term trajectory for possible destruction and "liquidation" of its Jewish residents. The Democrats have failed to try and push back against the international campaign against Israel, and now many seek to actively join it.
A vote for the Dems is a vote for genocide of Jews.
From The Times, a little sample of what is coming:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/do-you-hate-britain-i-asked-my-pupils-thirty-raised-their-hands-35gxx2t6n
QuoteDo you hate Britain, I asked my pupils. Thirty raised their hands
After Katharine Birbalsingh had her prayer ban upheld, the head accused schools of failing to back UK values. One teacher, writing anonymously, reveals the troubling views of children as young as 11
'The Taliban do let girls go to school," boasted the teenage boy. "But they stop them when they turn 11, which is very fair."
In an after-school detention, a handful of pupils were doing their best to convince me, their teacher, that Afghanistan was much nicer now the Taliban were in control. Nothing I said would convince them. It turned out these children not only supported gender inequality but were fans of executing all manner of criminals too.
My pupils are a lively bunch. The school, where I teach humanities, is a large academy in the south of England and caters to those from poor families. Most are Muslim and a few have lived in Islamic countries, including Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. They burst with character and enthusiasm for improving their lives. I work hard to help them and have a genuine pride in them, in a way only fellow teachers will understand.
But I also worry about them. I share some of the same concerns that Katharine Birbalsingh expressed after her legal victory last week, when she successfully defended a High Court challenge to her ban on prayer rituals. In the absence of a clear commitment to British values, she argued, identity politics was filling the vacuum.
The more I get to know my pupils, the more distressed I am by some of their views. Of course, teenagers have always aspired to radical chic in order to shock their elders. In my youth, we lounged around the school common room repeating Frankie Boyle's most offensive jokes.
But this generation is different. The other day, in response to a comment made by a pupil, I asked a class of 13-year-olds to raise their hands if they hated Britain. Thirty hands shot up with immediate, absolute certainty.
I'm not sure how many of my pupils support the Taliban. It is probably a minority, but not a small one. Many of the boys I teach hold shocking views on women. One Year 8 pupil regularly interrupts lessons with diatribes about how western society is brainwashing young men into becoming more feminine. Most of the lads I teach think women should have fewer rights than men. They spend citizenship lessons arguing that wives should not work.
Such views come from a dangerous manipulation of their faith they find online. The misogynist influencer Andrew Tate is their hero, particularly since his claimed conversion to Islam.
In some ways, the fact that these children hate Britain and all its values is not entirely surprising. Many have relatives whose lives were ruined by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They fled to Britain for a better life, having fought against oppressive regimes. It is strange, then, that a Kurdish boy of Iraqi descent should tell me he admires Saddam Hussein. "Iraq's just a bit rubbish now," he reasons. A blame he can easily place with Britain.
My pupil's childhoods were spent watching parents processing trauma from these wars, while around them British government policies seemed focused on disparaging immigrants: the "hostile environment", Brexit and now the Rwanda plan. A Muslim teacher tells me she has been called a terrorist in the street. The children, she says, will have faced similar harassment.
But all too often these sentiments spill into bigotry towards their own country and others who live here. Due to the Gaza war, no group is more despised than the Jews, with pupils regularly making comments of pure hatred. Teachers are asked: "Who do you support: Israel or Palestine?" We are supposed to remain neutral, but some staff adorn their laptops with pro-Palestinian slogans.
And this reflects a big part of the problem: my school and many others are rolling over and not even attempting to mount a defence of western values.
My colleagues tend to believe that the solution to our pupils' dislike of Britain is to design a curriculum that is packed with hand-wringing about western imperialism and institutional racism. If we teach them we did wrong, then they will know that we are sorry and move on, the argument goes.
This process of radical healing can be useful. It can help to have difficult conversations and entice pupils from different backgrounds into engaging critically with their work. But I also think it has gone too far.
In some schools, the anti-western narrative is woven through much of the curriculum. A friend of mine teaches history and in a single day says he could teach the Spanish colonisation of the Americas, the Portuguese colonisation of Africa, the British colonisation of India, the decolonisation of the British Empire and the slave trade. This relentless focus on empire does not seem to have made our pupils any less angry.
The problem is not limited to my pupils. I once taught at a middle-class school with mostly white children. Here, the curriculum was similarly designed to open minds to the evils of western civilisation. The pupils were not susceptible to Islamism, but were still imbued with a sense that their country is particularly bad. Increasingly, schools are not dissuading children of these prejudices, but confirming them.
My school is only part of the problem. The history curriculum at many schools may now feature the diversity of troops in the First World War, or the 1980s as a period of queer exploration. These are worthwhile subjects for an undergraduate essay, but not substitutes for the basic building blocks of historical knowledge.
I once observed a Year 8 lesson on the "black Tudors". One pupil raised his hand to ask: "Who were the Tudors?" — they hadn't thought to teach the Reformation before the racism. Similarly, when teaching the Norman Conquest, it is becoming unfashionable to teach the pivotal Battle of Hastings. Instead, some schools focus on studying Empress Matilda, who ruled Brit. Again, a worthy subject at some point, but an odd one to teach to Year 7s instead of the fact Harold Godwinson was (probably) shot in the eye with an arrow.
I worry the effect of this pedagogical radicalism is not to calm tensions, but to exacerbate them. A teacher friend visited a school recently and heard its head of history describe the aim of their curriculum as the creation of "scholar activists". They said they wanted to turn pupils into radical agents of protest against a state they say is institutionally racist.
Some of this chaos is down to the growth of academy schools that began under Michael Gove when he was education secretary. Gove attempted to introduce a conservative version of the national curriculum. But now academies and free schools, which now comprise 80 per cent of secondary schools, have greater freedoms to dictate their curriculums. The result for some schools has been much less 1066 and much more "all that" .
Solving this problem is tricky. It is sad there seems to be little desire to measure and discuss the scale of disaffection I see from my pupils.
Curriculums, to the extent pupils pay attention to them, can be a powerful tool to mould society. Yet hardly anyone is arguing for a balanced, liberal curriculum that would focus on traditional subjects while incorporating critical, or decolonised, narratives. From what I have seen, the alternative to this produces some pretty troubling results.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 21, 2024, 02:33:59 PMFrom The Times, a little sample of what is coming:
Curriculums, to the extent pupils pay attention to them, can be a powerful tool to mould society. Yet hardly anyone is arguing for a balanced, liberal curriculum that would focus on traditional subjects while incorporating critical, or decolonised, narratives. From what I have seen, the alternative to this produces some pretty troubling results.
Good.
We need less secularism and more religion in schools and everywhere in government to make sure this happens more and more.
Less critical thoughts, more spoon fed ideas rejecting liberal values. :)
You should be happy. With a little guidance, these kids could have become Christian Conservatives and elected the next MAGA moron anywhere in the world.
Yeah, so has viper flipped or something?
I think that posters using sarcasm should end their posts with "/s" so the slower forum members can appreciate them as well.
QuoteDo you hate Britain, I asked my pupils. Thirty raised their hands
After Katharine Birbalsingh had her prayer ban upheld, the head accused schools of failing to back UK values. One teacher, writing anonymously, reveals the troubling views of children as young as 11
Weird lead in as I could very well have imagined simular in my class of non thinkers.
Hating Britain is the British way. Its a shit country. But it's our shit country.
QuoteI once observed a Year 8 lesson on the "black Tudors". One pupil raised his hand to ask: "Who were the Tudors?" — they hadn't thought to teach the Reformation before the racism. Similarly, when teaching the Norman Conquest, it is becoming unfashionable to teach the pivotal Battle of Hastings. Instead, some schools focus on studying Empress Matilda, who ruled Brit. Again, a worthy subject at some point, but an odd one to teach to Year 7s instead of the fact Harold Godwinson was (probably) shot in the eye with an arrow.
So a teacher actually does a good job and covers something interesting the kids wouldn't have heard before rather looping around the same handful of topics for the 3rd time...
But it's a big disaster because theres obviously going to be one kid in class who doesn't even know what he had for breakfast?
Not sure where the existence of black tudors equates to teaching racism. Such odd pearl clutching.
The battle of Hastings gets taught long before year 8. The whole late medieval period in England however tends to be totally ignored so great to see a teacher looking at it.
Just saw another article today incidentally about a study that found culture war nonsense turned off far more voters than they persuaded. I do think people are getting wise. Fingers crossed.
Not sure what this article has to do with the current Israel situation at all however?
What is year 8 in people years?
Middle school seniors, so 13?
Josq is exhibiting the typical low IQ hamastan shit we have come to expect.
1. You dislike Britain because of whinging British culture shit, these Muslims hate Britain because they want to see women who go outside with their head uncovered stoned to death. You. Are. Not. The. Same.
2. How it relates to the situation in Israel was explained, by me, in the post immediately prior and in several prior posts. There is a wave of hateful, Muslim-lead antisemitic, anti-Israel sentiment that is dominating many Western countries. The U.S. is functionally the last bastion of the West against this, and when it falls to the Hamastans, Israel will be on the pathway to being treated like apartheid South Africa--with probably very terrible results. Unfortunately due to extreme Jew hatred, the Israelis won't be able to mass flee to Britain and other white countries like a large portion of the Afrikaner population, they will likely just be massacred in place.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 21, 2024, 09:38:41 PMJosq is exhibiting the typical low IQ hamastan shit we have come to expect.
1. You dislike Britain because of whinging British culture shit, these Muslims hate Britain because they want to see women who go outside with their head uncovered stoned to death. You. Are. Not. The. Same.
2. How it relates to the situation in Israel was explained, by me, in the post immediately prior and in several prior posts. There is a wave of hateful, Muslim-lead antisemitic, anti-Israel sentiment that is dominating many Western countries. The U.S. is functionally the last bastion of the West against this, and when it falls to the Hamastans, Israel will be on the pathway to being treated like apartheid South Africa--with probably very terrible results. Unfortunately due to extreme Jew hatred, the Israelis won't be able to mass flee to Britain and other white countries like a large portion of the Afrikaner population, they will likely just be massacred in place.
We are not the same you proclaim here... Yet you have no issue conflating " OMFG woke. Black people and women in history. We R doomed if we don't just learn the list of kings!" With Islamic extremism. :lol:
I'm starting to think Josq did drugs or something before typing that post.
Quote from: Josquius on April 22, 2024, 02:00:48 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 21, 2024, 09:38:41 PMJosq is exhibiting the typical low IQ hamastan shit we have come to expect.
1. You dislike Britain because of whinging British culture shit, these Muslims hate Britain because they want to see women who go outside with their head uncovered stoned to death. You. Are. Not. The. Same.
2. How it relates to the situation in Israel was explained, by me, in the post immediately prior and in several prior posts. There is a wave of hateful, Muslim-lead antisemitic, anti-Israel sentiment that is dominating many Western countries. The U.S. is functionally the last bastion of the West against this, and when it falls to the Hamastans, Israel will be on the pathway to being treated like apartheid South Africa--with probably very terrible results. Unfortunately due to extreme Jew hatred, the Israelis won't be able to mass flee to Britain and other white countries like a large portion of the Afrikaner population, they will likely just be massacred in place.
We are not the same you proclaim here... Yet you have no issue conflating OMFG woke. Black people and women in history. We R doomed if we don't just learn the list of kings! With Islamic extremism. :lol:
Can anyone translate this word salad into english?
I think that's the wrong question. The right question is, do we want to translate it into English?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 22, 2024, 09:03:30 AMI'm starting to think Josq did drugs or something before typing that post.
The difference between you and him is that, when he stops taking drugs, he can stop writing crazy shit.
At Columbia University protests continue and Jewish students were told to stay home. They're now doing remote learning this week. It's Passover and Jews are forced to hide. Again.
Harassment of Jewish students in NYC. "Never forget the 7th of October. That will happen not one more time, not five more times, not 10...100...1000...10,000...The 7th of October is going to be every day for you."
https://twitter.com/jonasydu/status/1781178975147917797
"this must be understood in context, it's not black and white, and antizionism is not antisemitism."
Sorry Raz you are wrong, as we have been told time and time again--this has nothing to do with antisemitism, this is just a dislike for Israel that has nothing to do with Judaism.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2024, 12:02:55 PMAt Columbia University protests continue and Jewish students were told to stay home. They're now doing remote learning this week. It's Passover and Jews are forced to hide. Again.
(https://gracelucille.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/23d81a3c3b066e3510ffca4a5093bee7.jpg)
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2024, 12:08:02 PMHarassment of Jewish students in NYC. "Never forget the 7th of October. That will happen not one more time, not five more times, not 10...100...1000...10,000...The 7th of October is going to be every day for you."
https://twitter.com/jonasydu/status/1781178975147917797
"this must be understood in context, it's not black and white, and antizionism is not antisemitism."
Homophobia and racism aren't the same thing .
You can still be a racist homophobe.
Raz are you Jewish?
I fear that October 7 will be viewed as another political master stroke by Putin. By aiding the Hamas attack on Israel, he split the left during the election year by activating the latent antisemites. It turns out that there are far more of them than anyone suspected; yet again Putin understood something about American society than Americans themselves didn't. I can very well see the antisemitic left handing Trump the presidency in November.
Sorry are we somehow assuming Putin controls Hamas now?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 22, 2024, 02:52:50 PMSorry are we somehow assuming Putin controls Hamas now?
He doesn't control Hamas, but he's now diplomatically allied with it, and given how prepared Russia's response to the attack was, it was probably that way some time before October 7.
Quote from: Josquius on April 22, 2024, 12:56:05 PMQuote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2024, 12:08:02 PMHarassment of Jewish students in NYC. "Never forget the 7th of October. That will happen not one more time, not five more times, not 10...100...1000...10,000...The 7th of October is going to be every day for you."
https://twitter.com/jonasydu/status/1781178975147917797
"this must be understood in context, it's not black and white, and antizionism is not antisemitism."
Homophobia and racism aren't the same thing .
You can still be a racist homophobe.
Which one is antizionism more like, homophobia or racism?
I KNEW THEY ARE PLOTTING SOMETHING.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2024, 12:02:55 PMAt Columbia University protests continue and Jewish students were told to stay home. They're now doing remote learning this week. It's Passover and Jews are forced to hide. Again.
All students were told to stay home, not just Jewish students. The whole campus went remote.
Actually Jewish students were specifically warned to stay home because campus was not safe, by an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi who works there. The later cancellation of all in person classes occurred after that.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 22, 2024, 08:50:14 PMActually Jewish students were specifically warned to stay home because campus was not safe, by an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi who works there. The later cancellation of all in person classes occurred after that.
The statements and actions of random individuals does not constitute university policy. The university can cancel classes. Random rabbi cannot.
Quote from: grumbler on April 22, 2024, 09:52:47 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 22, 2024, 08:50:14 PMActually Jewish students were specifically warned to stay home because campus was not safe, by an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi who works there. The later cancellation of all in person classes occurred after that.
The statements and actions of random individuals does not constitute university policy. The university can cancel classes. Random rabbi cannot.
And?
Your post made it sound like Colombia told them to stay home.
Quote from: HVC on April 22, 2024, 10:15:34 PMYour post made it sound like Colombia told them to stay home.
The two are easy to confuse.
Slogans heard at Columbia:
"We say justice, you say how? Burn Tel Aviv to the ground!"
"Al-Qassam you make us proud! Take another soldier out!"
"Hamas, we love you! We support your rockets, too!"
"Red, black, green, and white, we support Hamas' fight!"
"It is right to rebel, al-Qassam, give them hell!
Not that catchy, but Josq has told me that nobody supports Hamas.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2024, 06:03:22 PMQuote from: Josquius on April 22, 2024, 12:56:05 PMQuote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2024, 12:08:02 PMHarassment of Jewish students in NYC. "Never forget the 7th of October. That will happen not one more time, not five more times, not 10...100...1000...10,000...The 7th of October is going to be every day for you."
https://twitter.com/jonasydu/status/1781178975147917797
"this must be understood in context, it's not black and white, and antizionism is not antisemitism."
Homophobia and racism aren't the same thing .
You can still be a racist homophobe.
Which one is antizionism more like, homophobia or racism?
I bet you think this captain literal thing is clever.
But I'm glad that you seem to get the point that not everything you dislike is the same thing and that people can have more than one label.
QuoteNot that catchy, but Josq has told me that nobody supports Hamas.
Go on then. Show me where I did. Roll out the gotcha.
Odds are good you're again being quite Draxian or are throwing something out of context.
Quote from: grumbler on April 22, 2024, 09:52:47 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 22, 2024, 08:50:14 PMActually Jewish students were specifically warned to stay home because campus was not safe, by an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi who works there. The later cancellation of all in person classes occurred after that.
The statements and actions of random individuals does not constitute university policy. The university can cancel classes. Random rabbi cannot.
No one said otherwise. Raz stated that Jewish students were told to stay off campus—and they were.
It's very misleading, though. Just because some dude told the Jewish students to stay home doesn't mean that the dude had good reasons to do so. And just because Columbia told all students to stay home in human usage of English doesn't mean that Columbia told Jewish students to stay home.
Yes, technically they told Jewish students to stay home, just like they told antisemitic students to stay home, and just like they told all transgender students to stay home. However, the common usage of English is different from how it's used in logic, and when you use a qualifying detail, it is presumed that it's not superfluous.
Quote from: DGuller on April 23, 2024, 07:54:26 AMIt's very misleading, though. Just because some dude told the Jewish students to stay home doesn't mean that the dude had good reasons to do so. And just because Columbia told all students to stay home in human usage of English doesn't mean that Columbia told Jewish students to stay home.
Yes, technically they told Jewish students to stay home, just like they told antisemitic students to stay home, and just like they told all transgender students to stay home. However, the common usage of English is different from how it's used in logic, and when you use a qualifying detail, it is presumed that it's not superfluous.
:yes:
QuoteTo deescalate the rancor and give us all a chance to consider next steps, I am announcing that all classes will be held virtually on Monday. Faculty and staff who can work remotely should do so; essential personnel should report to work according to university policy. Our preference is that students who do not live on campus will not come to campus.
During the coming days, a working group of Deans, university administrators and faculty members will try to bring this crisis to a resolution. That includes continuing discussions with the student protestors and identifying actions we can take as a community to enable us to peacefully complete the term and return to respectful engagement with each other. I know that there is much debate about whether or not we should use the police on campus, and I am happy to engage in those discussions. But I do know that better adherence to our rules and effective enforcement mechanisms would obviate the need for relying on anyone else to keep our community safe. We should be able to do this ourselves.
Over the past days, there have been too many examples of intimidating and harassing behavior on our campus. Antisemitic language, like any other language that is used to hurt and frighten people, is unacceptable and appropriate action will be taken. We urge those affected to report these incidents through university channels. We also want to remind everyone of the support available for anyone adversely affected by current events.
There are different ways to interpret this statement, but it certainly seems like anti-semitic harassment was an important motivating factor in the closure.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2024, 11:28:05 PMSlogans heard at Columbia:
"We say justice, you say how? Burn Tel Aviv to the ground!"
"Al-Qassam you make us proud! Take another soldier out!"
"Hamas, we love you! We support your rockets, too!"
"Red, black, green, and white, we support Hamas' fight!"
"It is right to rebel, al-Qassam, give them hell!
Not that catchy, but Josq has told me that nobody supports Hamas.
Where were you "at Columbia" that you heard these statements? Or was it just a dream?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 23, 2024, 07:16:35 AMQuote from: grumbler on April 22, 2024, 09:52:47 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 22, 2024, 08:50:14 PMActually Jewish students were specifically warned to stay home because campus was not safe, by an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi who works there. The later cancellation of all in person classes occurred after that.
The statements and actions of random individuals does not constitute university policy. The university can cancel classes. Random rabbi cannot.
No one said otherwise. Raz stated that Jewish students were told to stay off campus—and they were.
But they were also told to stay on campus, so they were not. No one "told" them anything but the university, and the university told everyone to take classes remotely. The private statements of private citizens isn't relevant.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 23, 2024, 08:36:38 AMQuoteTo deescalate the rancor and give us all a chance to consider next steps, I am announcing that all classes will be held virtually on Monday. Faculty and staff who can work remotely should do so; essential personnel should report to work according to university policy. Our preference is that students who do not live on campus will not come to campus.
During the coming days, a working group of Deans, university administrators and faculty members will try to bring this crisis to a resolution. That includes continuing discussions with the student protestors and identifying actions we can take as a community to enable us to peacefully complete the term and return to respectful engagement with each other. I know that there is much debate about whether or not we should use the police on campus, and I am happy to engage in those discussions. But I do know that better adherence to our rules and effective enforcement mechanisms would obviate the need for relying on anyone else to keep our community safe. We should be able to do this ourselves.
Over the past days, there have been too many examples of intimidating and harassing behavior on our campus. Antisemitic language, like any other language that is used to hurt and frighten people, is unacceptable and appropriate action will be taken. We urge those affected to report these incidents through university channels. We also want to remind everyone of the support available for anyone adversely affected by current events.
There are different ways to interpret this statement, but it certainly seems like anti-semitic harassment was an important motivating factor in the closure.
I think that, if you read it closely, it explicitly talks about "antisemitic language" as the specific example of the "many examples of intimidating and harassing behavior on our campus," so I don't agree that this could reasonably be interpreted otherwise.
Quote from: grumbler on April 23, 2024, 01:04:38 PMQuote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2024, 11:28:05 PMSlogans heard at Columbia:
"We say justice, you say how? Burn Tel Aviv to the ground!"
"Al-Qassam you make us proud! Take another soldier out!"
"Hamas, we love you! We support your rockets, too!"
"Red, black, green, and white, we support Hamas' fight!"
"It is right to rebel, al-Qassam, give them hell!
Not that catchy, but Josq has told me that nobody supports Hamas.
Where were you "at Columbia" that you heard these statements? Or was it just a dream?
Read it in a news article.
The first time I scanned Raz's list of genocide chants I thought fuck, expel them all.
Second read through I noticed they're all directed to Israel proper. Nothing threatening to Jews at Columbia or in the US. So maybe no expulsion?
Got to love the double standards continuing to be at play from some.
Endlessly pressing how bad anti semitism has gotten yet the rise in islamophobia?
Not a peep.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-anti-muslim-incidents-hit-record-high-2023-due-israel-gaza-war-2024-04-02/
Quote from: Josquius on April 23, 2024, 05:48:41 PMGot to love the double standards continuing to be at play from some.
Endlessly pressing how bad anti semitism has gotten yet the rise in islamophobia?
Not a peep.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-anti-muslim-incidents-hit-record-high-2023-due-israel-gaza-war-2024-04-02/
We peeped the Vermont attack. At least one peep.
Yeah, there has been quite a bit about this. Many, many peeps. Keep in mind CAIR is a somewhat dodgy organization.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/california-muslim-leader-warns-about-polite-zionists-drawing-rebuke-from-adl/
QuoteCalifornia Muslim leader warns about 'polite Zionists,' drawing rebuke from ADL
Activist Zahra Billoo tells pro-Palestinian conference to monitor 'Zionist synagogues'; Anti-Defamation League calls speech 'vile, antisemitic, conspiracy-laden garbage'
. The Jewish News of Northern California via JTA — A Muslim civil rights attorney and activist is drawing criticism, including accusations of antisemitism, from local and national Jewish organizations after a November 27 speech.
Zahra Billoo leads the San Francisco office of CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
In her speech, which drew attention after excerpts were republished by the Israel-advocacy website Israellycool on Dec. 2, she asked attendees gathered at a pro-Palestinian conference in Chicago to focus on not only extreme right-wing forces, but also "polite Zionists," including the Anti-Defamation League, Jewish Federations, Hillel and "Zionist synagogues."
"When we talk about Islamophobia, we think oftentimes about the vehement fascists," Billoo said.
"But I also want us to pay attention to the polite Zionists. The ones that say, 'Let's just break bread together.'"
"They are not your friends," she said.
In the speech, delivered at an annual conference of American Muslims for Palestine, Billoo described a well-funded campaign to bolster Islamophobia around the world and an interconnected network of Zionist-supporting organizations working to harm Muslims.
She also repeated a false claim, one that circulates among some left-wing activist groups, that "police officers in the United States who kill unarmed black men, women and children are trained by the Israeli military."
A number of Jewish organizations offered harsh criticisms of her comments, saying they echoed antisemitic tropes of Jewish power and control.
The ADL's national director Jonathan Greenblatt issued a searing rebuke, calling the comments "textbook vile, antisemitic, conspiracy-laden garbage attacking the mainstream US Jewish community."
The San Francisco-based office of the Jewish Community Relations Council also excoriated the speech in a statement, calling it "antisemitic and deplorable, seeking to divide and besmirch efforts at cooperation and coexistence."
The incident illustrated the political chasm that separates many mainstream Jewish organizations from pro-Palestinian Muslim activists on the subject of Israel, even as they may agree on other political issues such as gun control, immigrant rights and combating racism.
The statements were also a rebuke of not only right-wing, pro-settlement religious Zionism, but also more moderate Zionist views widely held in the American Jewish community. According to a recent Pew survey, roughly 8 in 10 American Jews say they feel a connection to Israel and that it is an important part of their Jewish identity.
Billoo said during the speech she does not support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "Allah has promised us victory," she said.
Billoo, a member of CAIR since 2009, is a celebrated civil rights attorney with a law degree from UC Hastings who appears in television news interviews and newspapers.
Over the last 12 years she has helped pursue civil rights lawsuits against Southwest Airlines, Abercrombie & Fitch and the US Justice Department, and has won accolades for her work. She has also partnered with a left-leaning Jewish group for at least one 2019 event.
In 2016, a few weeks after Donald Trump was elected president, Billoo posted on Facebook, "He's going to do to you Muslims what Hitler did to the Jews."
In 2019 Billoo became one of a handful of Women's March organizers who either left or were removed from organizing roles amid claims of anti-Israel animosity and antisemitism. Her removal came after criticism from the ADL and others stemming from a 2015 tweet in which she wrote: "I'm more afraid of racist Zionists who support Apartheid Israel than of the mentally ill young people the FBI recruits to join ISIS."
Billoo and the national office of CAIR did not respond to a request for comment.
In the end, CAIR supported her https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/cair-supports-member-that-said-zionist-synagogues-behind-islamophobia-688510
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2024, 11:28:05 PMSlogans heard at Columbia:
"We say justice, you say how? Burn Tel Aviv to the ground!"
"Al-Qassam you make us proud! Take another soldier out!"
"Hamas, we love you! We support your rockets, too!"
"Red, black, green, and white, we support Hamas' fight!"
"It is right to rebel, al-Qassam, give them hell!
Not that catchy, but Josq has told me that nobody supports Hamas.
Ohhh. University students have radical leftists spouting anti war slogans!
It's a first! Stop the press!
"Burn Tel Aviv to the ground" is a very unorthodox anti-war slogan
Quote from: Razgovory on April 23, 2024, 07:54:30 PM"Burn Tel Aviv to the ground" is a very unorthodox anti-war slogan
I remember plenty of protests against war that turned violent.
I do remember reading about riots during the US Civil War and then during the Vietnam war.
Between a riot an "
Burn tel Aviv to the ground" I think I'll take the moron with the hate speech.
Besides, isn't hate speech protected in the US? Isn't this a value dear to everyone and particularly the GOP and its supporters, without any limits?
Quote from: viper37 on April 23, 2024, 08:29:37 PMI remember plenty of protests against war that turned violent.
I do remember reading about riots during the US Civil War and then during the Vietnam war.
Between a riot an "Burn tel Aviv to the ground" I think I'll take the moron with the hate speech.
Besides, isn't hate speech protected in the US? Isn't this a value deer to the right and particularly the GOP and its supporters, without any limits?
"Kill the enemy" is not an anti war slogan. It's a pro war slogan.
David Horowitz explains this situation well:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-goal-of-the-campus-jew-haters-to-render-israel-indefensible-in-both-senses-of-the-word/
The leftists who this very day are working to effect a mass genocide on the Jews of Israel must be seen for the true, genuine evil that they are--the moral stain on them shall last forever.
QuoteThe goal of the campus Jew-haters: To render Israel indefensible, in both senses of the word
The aggression against Israel and Jews would not be tolerated if aimed at any other minority; its defenders are unforgivably prioritizing free speech above the intended deadly consequences
Pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel protesters hold a march against Israel outside Columbia University in New York City on April 18, 2024. (Kena Betancur/AFP)
This Editor's Note was sent out earlier Wednesday in ToI's weekly update email to members of the Times of Israel Community. To receive these Editor's Notes as they're released, join the ToI Community here.
While Jews have been celebrating the first days of Passover, the ancient festival of freedom, antisemites and their useful idiot collaborators on a swelling number of American university campuses have been rallying and issuing murderous threats in a strategic effort to end Jewish freedom, in the here and now, by destroying the world's only Jewish majority state.
The underlying goal of the encampments and marches at Columbia, Yale, NYU and the other campuses is to render Israel indefensible — in both senses of the word.
The strategy:
First, to misrepresent what Israel has been subjected to and how it has responded since Hamas invaded our country on October 7, slaughtered 1,200 people, abducted 253 hostages, and then hid behind and beneath Gaza's civilians in a bid to survive and do it all again.
Second, to falsely brand Israel as a brutal and indifferent aggressor, solely responsible for a soaring Gaza death toll that would, in fact, total precisely zero were it not for Hamas's genocidal ambitions for the Jews and indifference to the lives of Gazan civilians.
Third, to build pressure for divestment from Israel, for an end to military aid, and ultimately for the severing of Israel's vital alliance with the United States.
And, finally, to thus deprive Israel of the diplomatic and military means to survive the ongoing effort at its destruction, as effected by Iran and its allies and proxies.
At the root of this strategy is, of course, the oldest of hatreds.
The antisemitism is stirred in this case by Muslim extremists, racists, ignoramuses and self-hating Jews; "inspired" on social media, and partly funded openly and covertly by states seeking Israel's demise.
And it is being tolerated in an environment that seems to prioritize limitless free speech over the violent consequences of the abuse of that freedom.
To the university administrations and faculty members defending, enabling and even rallying in support of the activists' ostensible rights to viciously denounce Israel and Jews with calls to burn Tel Aviv, kill soldiers and threaten Jewish students with murder by Hamas, one must put the question: Is the right to free speech unlimited, to be upheld even when the goal and likely potential consequence is deadly?
As the British-Palestinian writer John Aziz has noted, this is "the rhetoric of mass murder."
Were this level of hatred and aggression directed at any other minority group, it is hard to imagine that it would be indulged and tolerated, even at the price of limiting free speech.
But targeting the planet's only Jewish majority state — and extending the hostility to Jews on campus and beyond — is evidently considered an exception, forgivable, even admirable.
That again, all you ostensibly ultra-humane and decent people who support these protests, is antisemitism.
The initial goal of this inexcusably tolerated murderous hostility is to aid in Israel's demise — by establishing our country as a pariah state, and rendering it untenable to be associated with, defended or protected. Protected, that is, from the amoral, rapacious, misogynistic, homophobic, and potent enemies who, as I write, are firing rockets from the north (Hezbollah), trying to do so from the south (Hamas), and advancing toward obtaining nuclear weapons in the east (Iran).
But if those enemy states, terrorist armies and their facilitators get done with Israel, they'll be coming for Jews everywhere (and, no, membership in Jewish Voice for Peace won't help), and, for that matter, for every other minority deemed unacceptable (sorry, Queers for Palestine).
At our family Seder night this year, I understood properly for the first time how it was that Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon, studying the story of the Exodus in Bnei Brak almost 2,000 years ago with their own urgent preoccupations, would, of course, have been talking all night, until their students came to remind them it was time for morning prayer.
And I thought at length for the first time — forgive me — of what it must have been like for Jews three or so generations ago to read the Haggadah during the Holocaust, trying to celebrate ancient deliverance while seeking to escape contemporaneous genocide.
With 133 Israelis absent from the Seder, held in captivity by the monstrous Hamas, in a nation still coming to terms with October 7 — with our loss, vulnerability and the surging global hostility to the very fact of our existence — passage after passage took on immediate and extreme relevance.
How could it not?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 23, 2024, 08:49:57 PMQuote from: viper37 on April 23, 2024, 08:29:37 PMI remember plenty of protests against war that turned violent.
I do remember reading about riots during the US Civil War and then during the Vietnam war.
Between a riot an "Burn tel Aviv to the ground" I think I'll take the moron with the hate speech.
Besides, isn't hate speech protected in the US? Isn't this a value deer to the right and particularly the GOP and its supporters, without any limits?
"Kill the enemy" is not an anti war slogan. It's a pro war slogan.
It's a radical leftist slogan. People who destroy property, people who attack cops and journalists, people who set fire to everything they find their hands on. People who believe it's a wise idea to guillotine bankers and seize their money. That sort of people.
It's hardly new or exclusive to the Pro-Palestinian camp.
And as I said, your country believes in absolute free speech. Hate speech should be tolerated according to most Americans, we've had this discussion before. Don't act all offended when it does not go the way you want it.
Just print your own sign saying you'll burn Teheran to the ground and organize a counter protest with OvB and Raz. Print some saying all of Gaza should be depopulated. I don't know. It's your country, it's legal.
Just don't have people come here whining about that hate speech crap.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 24, 2024, 04:14:19 PMThe goal of the campus Jew-haters: To render Israel indefensible, in both senses of the word
All 5 of them?
Good luck!
Quote from: viper37 on April 24, 2024, 05:49:59 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 24, 2024, 04:14:19 PMThe goal of the campus Jew-haters: To render Israel indefensible, in both senses of the word
All 5 of them?
Good luck!
Fuck off Nazi.
Quote from: viper37 on April 24, 2024, 05:49:07 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on April 23, 2024, 08:49:57 PMQuote from: viper37 on April 23, 2024, 08:29:37 PMI remember plenty of protests against war that turned violent.
I do remember reading about riots during the US Civil War and then during the Vietnam war.
Between a riot an "Burn tel Aviv to the ground" I think I'll take the moron with the hate speech.
Besides, isn't hate speech protected in the US? Isn't this a value deer to the right and particularly the GOP and its supporters, without any limits?
"Kill the enemy" is not an anti war slogan. It's a pro war slogan.
It's a radical leftist slogan. People who destroy property, people who attack cops and journalists, people who set fire to everything they find their hands on. People who believe it's a wise idea to guillotine bankers and seize their money. That sort of people.
It's hardly new or exclusive to the Pro-Palestinian camp.
And as I said, your country believes in absolute free speech. Hate speech should be tolerated according to most Americans, we've had this discussion before. Don't act all offended when it does not go the way you want it.
Just print your own sign saying you'll burn Teheran to the ground and organize a counter protest with OvB and Raz. Print some saying all of Gaza should be depopulated. I don't know. It's your country, it's legal.
Just don't have people come here whining about that hate speech crap.
I don't want to print a sign saying I'll burn Tehran to the ground. First because I couldn't do it, and second because I believe that would make me a bad person.
I will continue to come here and express my negative judgement of protestors who call for more dead Israelis. You can call it whining if you want but I see things differently.
Anyway, I found the a video of these chants. https://twitter.com/DSchwammenthal/status/1782065763932659860?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR00L0oDPrC5C7K0NBccJOo2EzNlfg_ChWd9hVQ6nmKS9rON0os6_40YyFA_aem_AZMikf4OSHTUVB19wFq1Mbj6nzO5zUWtcD7iJ2g7qgvJe-Xbt4Ogp4u-ec1_dWsL0wGyrR6zJuGNlMrn0_rEcuSc
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 24, 2024, 06:30:08 PMI will continue to come here and express my negative judgement of protestors who call for more dead Israelis. You can call it whining if you want but I see things differently.
OvB and Raz are certainly whining and making a fuss about a few protestors.
I think this is a better answer. (https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/22/biden-condemns-anti-semitic-protests-and-absence-of-palestinian-empathy-too-00153709)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 24, 2024, 06:23:08 PMQuote from: viper37 on April 24, 2024, 05:49:59 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 24, 2024, 04:14:19 PMThe goal of the campus Jew-haters: To render Israel indefensible, in both senses of the word
All 5 of them?
Good luck!
Fuck off Nazi.
QuotePresident Donald Trump maintained he "answered perfectly" when he said there were "very fine people on both sides" of clashes at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Quote from: viper37 on April 24, 2024, 08:39:37 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on April 24, 2024, 06:30:08 PMI will continue to come here and express my negative judgement of protestors who call for more dead Israelis. You can call it whining if you want but I see things differently.
OvB and Raz are certainly whining and making a fuss about a few protestors.
I think this is a better answer. (https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/22/biden-condemns-anti-semitic-protests-and-absence-of-palestinian-empathy-too-00153709)
Their actions don't constitute whining IMO either.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 24, 2024, 08:42:39 PMQuote from: viper37 on April 24, 2024, 08:39:37 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on April 24, 2024, 06:30:08 PMI will continue to come here and express my negative judgement of protestors who call for more dead Israelis. You can call it whining if you want but I see things differently.
OvB and Raz are certainly whining and making a fuss about a few protestors.
I think this is a better answer. (https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/22/biden-condemns-anti-semitic-protests-and-absence-of-palestinian-empathy-too-00153709)
Their actions don't constitute whining IMO either.
Let's agree to disagree on that.
Also no one but viper, a well known imbecile, has raised any 1A issues. Literally no one is saying people don't have a right to be Nazis. I am condemning them for that—which is also my right.
People from low freedom countries where the population is too stupid to handle free expression generally can't understand that nuance.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 24, 2024, 06:30:08 PMI don't want to print a sign saying I'll burn Tehran to the ground. First because I couldn't do it, and second because I believe that would make me a bad person.
I will continue to come here and express my negative judgement of protestors who call for more dead Israelis. You can call it whining if you want but I see things differently.
The issue isn't whether these people are cunts. They obviously are.
Its those pointing to them and going "See! See! Anyone who dares to speak against Israel is like this! Anti zionism is anti semitism!"
Its like saying there's no difference between those criticising the Saudi or Iranian regime and the "muslims are subhuman and should all be killed" brigade
One of the problems for the Raz/OvB "you are all Nazis or Iranian useful idiots if you have any sympathy for the Palestinians" position is that the most useful idiot for the Iranians is named Benjamin Netanyahu. Both the Iranians and the Israeli government are working hard to "to render Israel indefensible, in both senses of the word."
Attempts to use Netanyahu to whitewash Nazism / antisemitism is not going to work.
A country having a poor leader doesn't justify their people being genocided or struck with terrorist attacks. It does not undermine the country's legitimate right to exist.
Quote from: Josquius on April 25, 2024, 03:09:16 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on April 24, 2024, 06:30:08 PMI don't want to print a sign saying I'll burn Tehran to the ground. First because I couldn't do it, and second because I believe that would make me a bad person.
I will continue to come here and express my negative judgement of protestors who call for more dead Israelis. You can call it whining if you want but I see things differently.
The issue isn't whether these people are cunts. They obviously are.
Its those pointing to them and going "See! See! Anyone who dares to speak against Israel is like this! Anti zionism is anti semitism!"
Its like saying there's no difference between those criticising the Saudi or Iranian regime and the "muslims are subhuman and should all be killed" brigade
This.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 25, 2024, 08:36:54 AMAttempts to use Netanyahu to whitewash Nazism / antisemitism is not going to work.
A country having a poor leader doesn't justify their people being genocided or struck with terrorist attacks. It does not undermine the country's legitimate right to exist.
Netanyahu doesn't "whitewash" Nazism, he echoes it. And the bit about poor leaders not justifying their people getting genocided or struck with terrorist attacks is the point pro-Palestinian moderates are trying to make and Zionists are trying to deny. "[Having a poor leader] does not undermine the country's legitimate right to exist" That's exactly the point of the moderate pro-Palestinians are trying to make, and the arch-Zionists deny. There's no excuse for violence against innocents on either side.
Point fails--no one is genociding Palestinians. That is part of a false narrative intended to delegitimize Israel.
The current war is one of the least deadly in modern times.
https://imgur.com/a/DHOUcW3
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 25, 2024, 09:58:07 AMPoint fails--no one is genociding Palestinians. That is part of a false narrative intended to delegitimize Israel.
The current war is one of the least deadly in modern times.
https://imgur.com/a/DHOUcW3
This may be true but "It wasn't genocide, it was only ethnic cleansing" isn't a great defence.
Quote from: Josquius on April 25, 2024, 03:09:16 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on April 24, 2024, 06:30:08 PMI don't want to print a sign saying I'll burn Tehran to the ground. First because I couldn't do it, and second because I believe that would make me a bad person.
I will continue to come here and express my negative judgement of protestors who call for more dead Israelis. You can call it whining if you want but I see things differently.
The issue isn't whether these people are cunts. They obviously are.
Its those pointing to them and going "See! See! Anyone who dares to speak against Israel is like this! Anti zionism is anti semitism!"
Its like saying there's no difference between those criticising the Saudi or Iranian regime and the "muslims are subhuman and should all be killed" brigade
Zionism is the idea that Jews have a right to their own country. Anti-Zionism is idea that Jews do not have a right to their own country. There is no real comparable ideology to this. There aren't a large group of people arguing that Iran should be abolished. This is not about criticism, praising rocket attacks, cheering on the death of soldiers and the destruction of the cities isn't criticism. They want Israel gone. That is the core of the Anti-zionism movement.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 25, 2024, 09:58:07 AMPoint fails--no one is genociding Palestinians. That is part of a false narrative intended to delegitimize Israel.
The current war is one of the least deadly in modern times.
https://imgur.com/a/DHOUcW3
Point fails - no one is genociding Jews. And no one is claiming that this war compares in total deaths to WW2.
Quote from: grumbler on April 25, 2024, 12:34:56 PMPoint fails - no one is genociding Jews.
Only because of lack of capability to accomplish the task. For Hamas, the will and intent is there.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 25, 2024, 12:58:56 PMQuote from: grumbler on April 25, 2024, 12:34:56 PMPoint fails - no one is genociding Jews.
Only because of lack of capability to accomplish the task. For Hamas, the will and intent is there.
As is the will and intent to genocide/ethnically cleanse the Palestinians among members of Israel's government. Israeli terrorism on the West Bank is being completely ignored (or even encouraged) by the Israeli government while the world is distracted by Gaza.
As I see it, if one imagines a scale of military response from 1 to 10, if we assume as a matter of international law and the right to self-defense, Israel is within its rights to be at a "6" (the specific number doesn't matter for the example), there are concerns because Israel is actually at a "7." That's a real issue and a real concern and fair basis for critical comment. It's not anti-semitic or even "anti-Zionist" to say that Israel should back off from the "7" or even for the United States to say we don't and won't support seveny kind of behavior from the Israelis.
But the other concern is that critics of Israel are using Israel's improper prosecution of 7 level intensity as an excuse to argue that Israel MUST go to zero or at least to some very low number that leaves Hamas freedom of action and compromises Israel's security. And in that sense the Horowitz/OvB critique has some merit.
Recent experience shows that genocide fulfillment ratio, defined as the number of innocents killed divided by number of innocents you have the capability to kill, is close to 100% for Hamas, and close to zero percent for Israel. It's not quite 100% because Hamas chose to take some innocent civilians as hostages, but it's close enough. Sure, you can make an argument that if you give Hamas the power to kill every Israeli, they may start using it more judiciously and the fulfillment ratio would go down, but frankly I'd rather not test that theory.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 25, 2024, 01:08:36 PMAs I see it, if one imagines a scale of military response from 1 to 10, if we assume as a matter of international law and the right to self-defense, Israel is within its rights to be at a "6" (the specific number doesn't matter for the example), there are concerns because Israel is actually at a "7." That's a real issue and a real concern and fair basis for critical comment. It's not anti-semitic or even "anti-Zionist" to say that Israel should back off from the "7" or even for the United States to say we don't and won't support seveny kind of behavior from the Israelis.
But the other concern is that critics of Israel are using Israel's improper prosecution of 7 level intensity as an excuse to argue that Israel MUST go to zero or at least to some very low number that leaves Hamas freedom of action and compromises Israel's security. And in that sense the Horowitz/OvB critique has some merit.
The OvB-Netanyahu way is to kill everyone until there's no one standing.
There are disagreements to be expected.
This is a terrorist according to OvB and Raz (https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/2024-04-03/frappe-israelienne/l-un-des-sept-travailleurs-humanitaires-tues-etait-originaire-de-la-beauce.php). I disagree.
When you are willing to kill 30-40 people to get at your target, a target that you're even sure is there, or is the right one, where is you military goal? Is the goal the intended target or the 30 or 40 people that were killed around it?
To some, it does not matter because they were all guilty. Just being Palestinians made them guilty, as Raz as constantly reminded us, there are polls showing support for Hamas among the Palestinians, it's enough to justify the killing of most of them and the eventual deportation of the others. This is the plan from the beginning, we have the leaks, and we have the US comments reminding Israel that it won't accept it. Doesn't mean they won't try.
Another reason Percentages are popular with people who like to misrepresent data.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2024, 12:27:24 PMQuote from: Josquius on April 25, 2024, 03:09:16 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on April 24, 2024, 06:30:08 PMI don't want to print a sign saying I'll burn Tehran to the ground. First because I couldn't do it, and second because I believe that would make me a bad person.
I will continue to come here and express my negative judgement of protestors who call for more dead Israelis. You can call it whining if you want but I see things differently.
The issue isn't whether these people are cunts. They obviously are.
Its those pointing to them and going "See! See! Anyone who dares to speak against Israel is like this! Anti zionism is anti semitism!"
Its like saying there's no difference between those criticising the Saudi or Iranian regime and the "muslims are subhuman and should all be killed" brigade
Zionism is the idea that Jews have a right to their own country. Anti-Zionism is idea that Jews do not have a right to their own country. There is no real comparable ideology to this. There aren't a large group of people arguing that Iran should be abolished. This is not about criticism, praising rocket attacks, cheering on the death of soldiers and the destruction of the cities isn't criticism. They want Israel gone. That is the core of the Anti-zionism movement.
You're arguing against what I said by backing up what I said completely and insisting all anti zionists are the worst of the batch.
There's tonnes of people who would label themselves as anti zionist who don't approve of violence.
Some anti zionists oppose the existence of Israel and want it gone- again this takes a range of forms from kill them all to secularise Israel.
Others recognise history has happened, Israel is a fact, and instead simply oppose further Israeli expansionism.
And you know fine well it's not simply about whether Jews deserve self determination. That's not much of an issue at all outside of the true black anti semites.
The question is why does one groups right of self determination completely override another groups right of self determination?
Quote from: viper37 on April 25, 2024, 01:47:40 PMThe OvB-Netanyahu way is to kill everyone until there's no one standing.
I'll let Otto speak for himself but clearly that statement is wrong re Netanyahu. He has a nuclear arsenal and overwhelming conventional force at his disposal; if his "way" was to "kill everyone until there's no one standing" then by the end of the day on October 8, every man, woman and child in Gaza would either have been dead or sitting down. Since nothing like that happened or has happened, the claim is false.
Quote from: viper37 on April 25, 2024, 01:47:40 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on April 25, 2024, 01:08:36 PMAs I see it, if one imagines a scale of military response from 1 to 10, if we assume as a matter of international law and the right to self-defense, Israel is within its rights to be at a "6" (the specific number doesn't matter for the example), there are concerns because Israel is actually at a "7." That's a real issue and a real concern and fair basis for critical comment. It's not anti-semitic or even "anti-Zionist" to say that Israel should back off from the "7" or even for the United States to say we don't and won't support seveny kind of behavior from the Israelis.
But the other concern is that critics of Israel are using Israel's improper prosecution of 7 level intensity as an excuse to argue that Israel MUST go to zero or at least to some very low number that leaves Hamas freedom of action and compromises Israel's security. And in that sense the Horowitz/OvB critique has some merit.
The OvB-Netanyahu way is to kill everyone until there's no one standing.
There are disagreements to be expected.
This is a terrorist according to OvB and Raz (https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/2024-04-03/frappe-israelienne/l-un-des-sept-travailleurs-humanitaires-tues-etait-originaire-de-la-beauce.php). I disagree.
When you are willing to kill 30-40 people to get at your target, a target that you're even sure is there, or is the right one, where is you military goal? Is the goal the intended target or the 30 or 40 people that were killed around it?
To some, it does not matter because they were all guilty. Just being Palestinians made them guilty, as Raz as constantly reminded us, there are polls showing support for Hamas among the Palestinians, it's enough to justify the killing of most of them and the eventual deportation of the others. This is the plan from the beginning, we have the leaks, and we have the US comments reminding Israel that it won't accept it. Doesn't mean they won't try.
Dude you are literally the dumbest faggot in history. If the Israelis wanted to "kill everyone" Gaza would have been depopulated months ago. It is quite clear that has not happened because Israel is largely (if imperfectly) following reasonable norms of warfare in urban areas. It can be expected to kill innocent noncombatants.
It looks nothing at all like intentional mass ethnic killings (whether you want to call it genocide or w/e) in any other comparable situation.
Quote from: Josquius on April 25, 2024, 01:50:59 PMAnother reason Percentages are popular with people who like to misrepresent data.
You're arguing against what I said by backing up what I said completely and insisting all anti zionists are the worst of the batch.
There's tonnes of people who would label themselves as anti zionist who don't approve of violence.
Some anti zionists oppose the existence of Israel and want it gone- again this takes a range of forms from kill them all to secularise Israel.
Others recognise history has happened, Israel is a fact, and instead simply oppose further Israeli expansionism.
And you know fine well it's not simply about whether Jews deserve self determination. That's not much of an issue at all outside of the true black anti semites.
The question is why does one groups right of self determination completely override another groups right of self determination?
No, the right of Jews to have self determination is the main issue with anti-Zionism. "True black anti-semites"? I don't know what that means. The vast majority of anti-Zionists don't believe Israel has a right to exist.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2024, 02:06:59 PMQuote from: Josquius on April 25, 2024, 01:50:59 PMAnother reason Percentages are popular with people who like to misrepresent data.
You're arguing against what I said by backing up what I said completely and insisting all anti zionists are the worst of the batch.
There's tonnes of people who would label themselves as anti zionist who don't approve of violence.
Some anti zionists oppose the existence of Israel and want it gone- again this takes a range of forms from kill them all to secularise Israel.
Others recognise history has happened, Israel is a fact, and instead simply oppose further Israeli expansionism.
And you know fine well it's not simply about whether Jews deserve self determination. That's not much of an issue at all outside of the true black anti semites.
The question is why does one groups right of self determination completely override another groups right of self determination?
No, the right of Jews to have self determination is the main issue with anti-Zionism.
It's really not.
Again. Why does zionists right of self determination (let's not pretend it's all Jews) override Palestinians right of self determination?
Quote"True black anti-semites"? I don't know what that means.
I was playing on the expression true blue with the colour of fascists.
Out and out traditional nazis would oppose Jews even breathing anywhere.
QuoteThe vast majority of anti-Zionists don't believe Israel has a right to exist.
Putting aside that no country has a right to exist....
Going to need proof on that one.
The Palestinians do have a right to self government, and maybe they'll get it when they stop fighting. We weren't going to bring up the German right to self-determination in 1945.
Out and out traditional Nazis? No, way more people oppose the Jews a right to a country than that. More people oppose Jews breathing than that.
For people who oppose the Jews the right to a country I would write down "The Muslim world". They make up the majority of the anti-Zionist population. Some do recognize that Israel is stronger than they are and can't be immediately destroyed, but few recognize that Jews have a right to self determination like any other country. I could add a multitude of others such as those who believe in anti-colonialism and a large number of Communists, but most of the people who are so interested in Israel that they identify themselves as "anti-zionist" aren't primarily interested in criticizing the Israeli judicial system. They want the whole thing gone.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2024, 02:25:52 PMThe Palestinians do have a right to self government, and maybe they'll get it when they stop fighting. We weren't going to bring up the German right to self-determination in 1945."
Yeah sure. The Palestinians are the problem. They just need to stop resisting whilst their lands get seized then they'll definitely get their country back.
And you can absolutely guarantee getting every single one of millions of people to behave is possible.
QuoteOut and out traditional Nazis? No, way more people oppose the Jews a right to a country than that. More people oppose Jews breathing than that.
I notice you keep dodging the awkward question here.
Why do zionists do expecially have a right to a country that they can seize bits of another people's wouldbe country at will?
QuoteFor people who oppose the Jews the right to a country I would write down "The Muslim world". They make up the majority of the anti-Zionist population. Some do recognize that Israel is stronger than they are and can't be immediately destroyed, but few recognize that Jews have a right to self determination like any other country. I could add a multitude of others such as those who believe in anti-colonialism and a large number of Communists, but most of the people who are so interested in Israel that they identify themselves as "anti-zionist" aren't primarily interested in criticizing the Israeli judicial system. They want the whole thing gone.
We clearly aren't talking about the Muslim world here though. We are talking about in the west.
And no. I recognise you watch incredibly one sided sources on this topic but there's a lot more nuance to criticism of zionism than that.
Quote from: Josquius on April 25, 2024, 02:37:05 PMWe clearly aren't talking about the Muslim world here though. We are talking about in the west.
If we exclude the Middle East from a discussion about Israel then things get kinda weird.
Quote from: Josquius on April 25, 2024, 02:37:05 PMQuote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2024, 02:25:52 PMThe Palestinians do have a right to self government, and maybe they'll get it when they stop fighting. We weren't going to bring up the German right to self-determination in 1945."
Yeah sure. The Palestinians are the problem. They just need to stop resisting whilst their lands get seized then they'll definitely get their country back.
And you can absolutely guarantee getting every single one of millions of people to behave is possible.
QuoteOut and out traditional Nazis? No, way more people oppose the Jews a right to a country than that. More people oppose Jews breathing than that.
I notice you keep dodging the awkward question here.
Why do zionists do expecially have a right to a country that they can seize bits of another people's wouldbe country at will?
QuoteFor people who oppose the Jews the right to a country I would write down "The Muslim world". They make up the majority of the anti-Zionist population. Some do recognize that Israel is stronger than they are and can't be immediately destroyed, but few recognize that Jews have a right to self determination like any other country. I could add a multitude of others such as those who believe in anti-colonialism and a large number of Communists, but most of the people who are so interested in Israel that they identify themselves as "anti-zionist" aren't primarily interested in criticizing the Israeli judicial system. They want the whole thing gone.
We clearly aren't talking about the Muslim world here though. We are talking about in the west.
And no. I recognise you watch incredibly one sided sources on this topic but there's a lot more nuance to criticism of zionism than that.
The Palestinians are the problem. They were the ones to refuse in 1948. They were the ones to refuse in 2000. They were the ones to refuse in 2006.
Why do the Israelis have the right to cease other bits of other people's countries at will? They don't. They shouldn't do that. They wouldn't be able to do that if the Palestinians had accepted the treaty in 2000, but they chose more bloodshed instead.
We are talking about Anti-zionists so we are obviously talking about Muslims. They are the main constituency here, not you. You are the fringe. In the West we have Muslims, left-wing extremists, radical students and a few pearl-clutching affluent labor party members.
Quote from: Josquius on April 25, 2024, 03:09:16 AMThe issue isn't whether these people are cunts. They obviously are.
Its those pointing to them and going "See! See! Anyone who dares to speak against Israel is like this! Anti zionism is anti semitism!"
It's not either or.
And from my viewing of he media there are significant portions of the population that do not think the protestors yelling genocide slogans are cunts. So it's not obvious to them.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2024, 03:16:53 PMThe Palestinians are the problem. They were the ones to refuse in 1948. They were the ones to refuse in 2000. They were the ones to refuse in 2006.
Why do the Israelis have the right to cease other bits of other people's countries at will? They don't. They shouldn't do that. They wouldn't be able to do that if the Palestinians had accepted the treaty in 2000, but they chose more bloodshed instead.
We are talking about Anti-zionists so we are obviously talking about Muslims. They are the main constituency here, not you. You are the fringe. In the West we have Muslims, left-wing extremists, radical students and a few pearl-clutching affluent labor party members.
The Palestinians didn't "refuse" anything in 1948. They were the victims of the Arab attack on Israel (and the Israeli counter-attack) as much as anyone. Israel refused to accept the 1947 borders, the 1967 borders, and the proposed 2000 borders, nor did it even consider entertaining its obligations under international law to allow the return of Palestinian refugees. The PLO/PA has certainly been more intransigent on average than the Israeli government on average, but Israeli intransigence was critical to several failed peace initiatives.
No argument can be made that everything would be all lovey-dovey if it weren't for the stupid Palestinians. Israelis themselves are certainly no more united on what a peace should look like than the Palestinians are.
I don't even know what you are talking about now.
Okay, that is too much.
(https://i.imgur.com/1XLHOwB.jpeg)
Part of me says I smell more of the Unbiased Katie sorts.
But it could also be a self aware but largely genuinely felt joke that helps earn a few dollars and builds publicity.
Quote from: Josquius on April 26, 2024, 10:46:49 AMPart of me says I smell more of the Unbiased Katie sorts.
But it could also be a self aware but largely genuinely felt joke that helps earn a few dollars and builds publicity.
Probably neither as the first one hold opinions of Jews roughly the same as Palestinians.
Is "Palestinian" a curse word? :unsure:
Quote from: DGuller on April 26, 2024, 03:41:18 PMIs "Palestinian" a curse word? :unsure:
Instagram can ban you if you write it directly in your post.
Quote from: Solmyr on Today at 03:23:53 AMQuote from: DGuller on April 26, 2024, 03:41:18 PMIs "Palestinian" a curse word? :unsure:
Instagram can ban you if you write it directly in your post.
And your posts won't show up on searches for the word.