Ed General Israel/Palestine discussion thread - Part 3

[Lithrael]

(...) There was no warning when Israel blew up a lorry evacuating women and children from North Gaza as Israel had requested.

https://news.sky.com/story/women-an...ke-on-fleeing-gaza-convoy-hamas-says-12984330

I see they have not added the video from a motorcycle a few cars back that shows the explosion comes out of nowhere, clear blue sky, no sign of anyone seeing anything coming.

I understand it's hard, from way over here and with knowledge of some of the things we do know Israeli forces have actually done, to evaluate whether they are likely to have done this next terrible thing, but "Hamas claims" plus photos of wreckage is probably not sufficient all by itself, to go ahead and call it "Israel blew up x" instead of "Hamas claims Israel blew up x."

Who benefits from attacking the evacuation route? Israel, who wants people to evacuate and knows they are in an international PR squeeze? Or Hamas, who wants people to stay put, wants people to hate Israel, and have already shown that Palestinian civilian casualties serve their cause rather than hinder it?

For real, I'm one of the people who 'obviously hates Israel' but I'm pretty sure this is Hamas terrorism against fleeing Palestinians and Hamas propaganda generation.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Who benefits from attacking the evacuation route?

If you're in the mindset that both sides are playing 15th dimensional chess trying to stay 37 moves ahead of the other side to gaslight them into an over-retaliation against them in the way that makes them look the most bad then you can find all kinds of reasons.

 

[TofuFighter]

It is an acronym. Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya (Islamic Resistance Movement)

 

[Thermal]

Hamas is using terrorist tactics, no question. The Palestinians consider the existence of Israel itself to be pretty much a terroristic land grab of their own country, right? So the Palestinians kind of really want their country back, by any means necessary? Seems kinda irreconcilable.So what, even in theory, could resolve this? I mean, that doesn't require the Palestinians to shut the **** up and give away their land at the point of a sword. Which doesn't seem entirely a reasonable demand.

 

[Dr.Sid]

"I don't think Hamas is better than Israel but I only spend argumentative time and effort on Israel and not Hamas" is a distinction without difference.

Again there a lot of people who put actual effort into criticizing Israel and then tack on a perfunctory "And Hamas is bad too I guess" and think that's the be fair and balanced and... I don't agree.

Anyone can just mouth the words "Oh I totally think both sides are bad" but when all of your actual effort and arguments that take time and argumentative energy and passion go in one direction, it falls flat.

What do you don't understand ? If Israel responds with the same manner as Hamas, it is the same as Hamas. You can't claim Hamas is bad if it kills civilians, but Israel is good if it does the same.
At the moment, there is still some benefit of doubt, and Israel actions might still be justified. But how many civilians unrelated to Hamas you can kill before it's the same as Hamas ? Same amount ? Twice as much ? 10 times as much ? At what moment would you say "Israel overreacted" ?

 

[Lithrael]

(re: 5d chess) That doesn't track even if you're looking for a reason for Israeli forces to have done it. They couldn't blame Hamas and get PR cred; nobody they'd want to flip would buy it. The only possible actual reasons I can imagine would be "there was an important Hamas figure there that couldn't be targeted more precisely for some reason" or "some angry nutter did it off orders."

It's just vastly more likely it was done by Hamas either coldly on purpose or with some kind of IED screwup.

 

[JoeMorgue]

What do you don't understand ? If Israel responds with the same manner as Hamas, it is the same as Hamas

But that's NOT what people are saying.

They are saying Hamas kills one person, Israel kills one person and either in the subtext or actual text some version of either "Well Hamas is the underdog" or "Well Israel is a democratic country and Hamas isn't so Israel is committing the extra sin of being a hypocrite so they are either worse or a different kind of wrong."

There's too much stuff getting as close as it can without outright saying "Well Hamas is a terrorist organization, what do you expect them to do?"

 

[Ziggurat]

This thing called 'evidence'.

No ****, Sherlock. I was interested in what evidence.

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org...gainst-breaking-ceasefire-hamas-and-hezbollah

That poll isn't quite what you claimed. 70% preferred the PA to Hamas, but that doesn't necessarily mean they don't support Hamas, they just support the PA more. In fact, your own source says, "57% of Gazans express at least a somewhat positive opinion of Hamas". But here's the real kicker:

The majority of Gazans don't support Hamas' campaign of violence, and would rather have Fatah governing them.
(This seems to have changed following the attacks, which I find totally bizarre.

That sounds an awful lot like you're saying your original claim was wrong.

Hamas' hate-fuelled recklessness has led to the deaths of thousands of Palestinian civilians, and endangered and displaced many, many more- and they welcome this! )

Which is exactly why I questioned your prior claim that the majority don't support Hamas.

 

[Lithrael]

"I don't think Hamas is better than Israel but I only spend argumentative time and effort on Israel and not Hamas" is a distinction without difference. (...)

I respect looking out for dogwhistles but you can also fall over into tone policing BS. If I've got two dogs exhibiting aggression and one is rabid, I won't spend any time analyzing the rabid dog's behaviour.

 

[Ziggurat]

Also civilian deaths were greater in conventional bombing raids.

I just looked up the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in WW2 it appears to be about 2:1, in the current Gazan conflict on the Gaza side it is about 100:1 and on the Israeli side about 5:1.*

*This should not be construed as a defence of criminal actions by Hamas.

You're pulling these numbers out of your ass. You have no evidence to back it up.

And you absolutely are defending Hamas. Just as the pacifists in WW2 were objectively pro-fascist, you are pro-Hamas whether you intend to be or not.

 

[Ziggurat]

I respect looking out for dogwhistles but you can also fall over into tone policing BS. If I've got two dogs exhibiting aggression and one is rabid, I won't spend any time analyzing the rabid dog's behaviour.

Will you object to putting it down? Because that's what's going on here.

 

[JoeMorgue]

(re: 5d chess) That doesn't track even if you're looking for a reason for Israeli forces to have done it. They couldn't blame Hamas and get PR cred; nobody they'd want to flip would buy it. The only possible actual reasons I can imagine would be "there was an important Hamas figure there that couldn't be targeted more precisely for some reason" or "some angry nutter did it off orders."

It's just vastly more likely it was done by Hamas either coldly on purpose or with some kind of IED screwup.

My point was I think there seems to be a tendency to in the conflict to think both sides are trying to out-think the other in a very specific "If I do this, you'll do this, and then you'll look bad and I'll win the sphere of global public opinion" for every action.

I don't think Israel and Hamas are trying to "moneyball" each other as much as others seem to think they are. They are still just fighting a conflict and trying to win the conflict in the moment most of the time I think.

 

[Lithrael]

(to Zig) No, not at all. In this analogy Hamas is indeed the rabid dog.

But these days, we do try to put down rabid dogs as humanely as possible, and imo sane criticism of Israel's actions amount to wanting to make sure they are acting as humanely as possible despite the fact that all the rabid dog wants to do is bite you and give you rabies before it dies.

 

[Dr.Sid]

But that's NOT what people are saying.

They are saying Hamas kills one person, Israel kills one person and either in the subtext or actual text some version of either "Well Hamas is the underdog" or "Well Israel is a democratic country and Hamas isn't so Israel is committing the extra sin of being a hypocrite so they are either worse or a different kind of wrong."

There's too much stuff getting as close as it can without outright saying "Well Hamas is a terrorist organization, what do you expect them to do?"

If Hamas kills one civilian, it is a murder. If Israel kills one civilian, it's also a murder. Being hypocrite isn't some extra sin, not compared to a murder. But it may be a fact.
All the result of this all might be just that. A disillusion. That Israel is just another Middle East religious state, with just the same medieval ethics.

 

[Ziggurat]

(to Zig) No, not at all. In this analogy Hamas is indeed the rabid dog.

But these days, we do try to put down rabid dogs as humanely as possible, and imo sane criticism of Israel's actions amount to wanting to make sure they are acting as humanely as possible despite the fact that all the rabid dog wants to do is bite you and give you rabies before it dies.

There is no "humane" way to destroy Hamas. They have acted to ensure any possible actions that would take them down inflict considerable harm on Gazans in general, because Hamas doesn't care about the welfare of Gaza. A lot of people here have basically concluded this means Hamas should not be taken down, or that the only permissible methods are ones that won't actually work.

That is a mistake.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If Hamas kills one civilian, it is a murder. If Israel kills one civilian, it's also a murder. Being hypocrite isn't some extra sin, not compared to a murder. But it may be a fact.
All the result of this all might be just that. A disillusion. That Israel is just another Middle East religious state, with just the same medieval ethics.

Again, and no I'm not dropping this, Hamas would kill me, you, and everyone in this thread and play soccer ball with our heads in the street and sleep like a baby a tonight. Hamas expects women to dress like beekeepers and throws gay people from the rooftops.

Hamas is EVERYTHING liberals hate about Conservatives times 1,000.

Israel is CLOSER to our values. This is not a non-factor. Hell pragmatically if you just want to brass tacks it we can keep Israel in check better than Hamas.

Again at the end of the day on a time line long enough one side is going to win this conflict and I want to be the side that is going to cause me and people like me the least amount of trouble to be the one that comes out on top. Call it selfish if you must.

We don't need another Muslim theocracy in the Middle East. We've got those covered.

 

[theprestige]

If Hamas kills one civilian, it is a murder. If Israel kills one civilian, it's also a murder.

No. Intentionally targeting civilians is murder. Intentionally targeting military personnel, knowing that some civilians will be killed by your attack, may or may not be murder, depending on several important details about that specific target and attack.

We know that Hamas intentionally targets civilians as a policy. This makes it very easy to judge as murder, their killing of civilians. We know they're doing it on purpose. They say as much.

We don't know of any such Israeli policy to intentionally target civilians. I'm sure some individual Israeli soldiers and units are doing it, and in those specific instances it is murder. But we cannot judge all civilian deaths arising from Israeli attacks in the same simple way we can judge Hamas's attacks on civilians.

 

[Lithrael]

(...) Again at the end of the day on a time line long enough one side is going to win this conflict and I want to be the side that is going to cause me and people like them the least amount of trouble to be the one that comes out on top. (...)

Honestly I think most people are certain that this is a foregone conclusion. Israel is 100% not going to lose in any existential sense. To the point many people think it's a joke to suggest it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Again at the end of the day on a time line long enough one side is going to win this conflict and I want to be the side that is going to cause me and people like me the least amount of trouble to be the one that comes out on top. Call it selfish if you must.

There's a certain strain of privileged progressive that seems to think acting against self-interest is the noble thing to do. \I think part of it comes from guilt, knowing that they're incredibly fortunate but did nothing to deserve it. But another part I think comes from a sort of faith that things will never change for them, that they will always remain privileged and safe, and that even if their preferred policies bring harm to others, they'll never have to personally face the consequences. So it's easy to support Hamas even though Hamas would gladly kill them, because they have faith that Hamas will never be in a position to do so. It's only other people that they're not too fond of anyways who end up dead.

This mindset is incredibly stupid.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yes. I want the side that hasn't openly declared it wants people like me dead to win.

There. My secret is out.