Ed General Israel/Palestine discussion thread - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
steenkh said:
Nobody is claiming that Hamas is better. In fact, all have claimed that Hamas’ actions were criminal.

The problem for Israel is that they want to be seen as the good guys, but good guys should be held to a higher moral standard than bad guys. Otherwise they are also bad guys. They may not be as bad as Hamas, but are located in that grey area where morals are fluid.

This is not a black and white world, and the good guys are rarely really good. I am inclined to believe that Hamas is really bad, but I don’t think that the Palestinians who are supporting Hamas are all as bad as Hamas themselves, and I don’t think that collectively punishing all Palestinians is justice.

How many Palestinians, including women and babies can Israel kill, and you will still think that Israel is justified in doing so? 5,000? 10,000? 50,000? As many as it takes?

At what point will people here who are 100% behind Israel think that Israel is overdoing it? Especially in the light that Israel will probably not be any safer when it is over?
Click to expand...

I am pretty close to the point where *I think* Israel should either go in on the ground, or let up. Everyone that wants to surrender can then march behind their lines, gets searched for weapons and get UNRWA aid. I also think if Egypt and the gulf states REALLY cared all that much for the Palestinians they'd be setting up camps in Sinai for them.

I also understand that Israeli's couldn't give two ***** what westerners on an internet forum think right now. And also same for Egypt etc.
 
Again I remain confused as to how any conflict in history has actually ever stopped according to some reasonings in this thread.

At a certain "I'm not on their side, I'm just saying literally everything you could do to stop them is going to work out in their favor" becomes a distinction without difference.

Sure maybe "Morally in your heart of hearts as measured by a pure trolly problem philosophy" nobody is "excusing" Hamas but someone of you are so good at explaining them in a way that by pure coincidence makes them the winner that's it's the same thing.
 
JoeMorgue said:
That's just "Terrorism is a valid strategy you aren't allowed to counter" with extra steps.
Click to expand...

No. You are just not allowed to counter it with mindless bombing. And mind you, I'm not saying they are. I just suspect it, because the really are bombing a lot, and the missed attack of 1000 militants two weeks ago, so their intel is just not too strong.
And to some extent yes. Not that terrorism is not "valid" .. but it is effective against someone not willing to stoop to the same level.
 
Ziggurat said:
Israel wants to stop getting attacked.
Click to expand...

Which again loops us right back to "The only real question being asked is whether or not Israel as a country is 'valid'" one.

Again at the end of the day that's all that is really up for debate.

Without going all the way back in the "To bake an apple pie you must first create the universe level" Israel was granted statehood by an international agreement in 1948.

Every opinion about everything about this is (nearly) 100% based on how "valid" you think that was.

The whole "Noes this is our sacred homeland stretching back to when God himself plopped our peoples down" is besides the point because A) that shouldn't be a factor in statehood in 2023 and B) everyone involved has the exact same amount of right to that area by that argument. Again it's the Middle East EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE started there.
 
It's even worse when you remember that Israel tried appeasement in Gaza. Predictably, Hamas did not say, "this is a good start, let's build up from this foundation, move from these tentative first steps towards a full run together as partners for peace."

Predictably, Hamas did the other thing.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Again I remain confused as to how any conflict in history has actually ever stopped according to some reasonings in this thread.

At a certain "I'm not on their side, I'm just saying literally everything you could do to stop them is going to work out in their favor" becomes a distinction without difference.

Sure maybe "Morally in your heart of hearts as measured by a pure trolly problem philosophy" nobody is "excusing" Hamas but someone of you are so good at explaining them in a way that by pure coincidence makes them the winner that's it's the same thing.
Click to expand...

It's because no conflict in history was ever pursued or resolved by people elsewhere talking about it and offering their opinions as if it mattered. What's happening here is entertainment: people who are not involved in a conflict, and have no way to contribute to either side of the conflict, are yakking about and proferring judgments just to pass the time. That's natural enough, the weird part is when some of us start to imagine our opinions matter to those actually engaged in a real-life conflict.
 
Paul2 said:
Not clear on how to join together your post that I replied to and your link. Can you make your point explicit?
Click to expand...

The metaphor has limited usefulness. Once it stops being useful, discard it in favor of the thing itself in its own terms. I don't mind straining the metaphors of rabid dogs and cornered rats a little bit. But if you want to talk about human shields, then I'm happy to abandon the metaphor and get down to business.

ETA: Portray Hamas as deranged animals without human agency or moral responsibility, and nobody complains, except to argue about how animal control is handling the animals all wrong. Discard the dehumanizing metaphor, in favor of talking about Hamas as human beings and moral agents who deserve to get shot in the face for their ongoing crimes against humanity, and what's the response? "I don't get it. What does this have to do with the rabid dog metaphor?"
 
Last edited:
Yeah basically. "Hamas has no volition and can't help themselves but whatever you do don't treat them as if that were true."
 
Dr.Sid said:
Not massacring more civilians ?
Click to expand...

Israel isn't 'massacring' civilians. it's targeting specific buildings and warning civilians with leaflets/roof knocking beforehand.

you didn't answer the question of course, which is how should Israel respond "proportionately"?
 
TragicMonkey said:
It's because no conflict in history was ever pursued or resolved by people elsewhere talking about it and offering their opinions as if it mattered. What's happening here is entertainment: people who are not involved in a conflict, and have no way to contribute to either side of the conflict, are yakking about and proferring judgments just to pass the time. That's natural enough, the weird part is when some of us start to imagine our opinions matter to those actually engaged in a real-life conflict.
Click to expand...
Commenting on this thread takes up time, but I’m not doing it to pass the time. I’m here to try to understand better what’s going on over there, and I’ve learned a lot thereby (and through other sources, too).
 
Planigale said:
So I previously argued shooting an unarmed woman in the back when she posed no immediate threat was a disproportionate response.

I argue bombing unarmed women and children is a disproportionate response. 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
Click to expand...

did Israel target the lorry?
This 'proportionate' idea is so Orwellian.
 
Planigale said:
I am not sure from the many reports from South Gaza of bombing that this is happening in the present war. People who have moved from the North to the South of Gaza have been killed. They have been killed with no warning.
Click to expand...


that's because they were not targeted. collateral damage occurs in all wars. it's the targeting that makes it a crime.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I figure the "sHOw Me wHEre aNyonE saId thAT!" would come up.

So here's my question. If that's not what people are saying... what do people keep bringing it up?

What does "Hamas can't be reasoned with" and "Hamas is the weaker party" add to the discourse that ISN'T excusing them?
Click to expand...

Everyone who claims someone has said something, and does not provide a specific quote to back that claim up, is making at best an unevidenced assertion and at worst, is lying and trying to suppress the debate.
 
Planigale said:
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
Click to expand...

You have not established that Israel blew up that lorry. Anything from the Gaza Health Ministry is from Hamas. They've been caught lying about casualties and responsibility before. Yet you assume they're telling the truth this time, with no verification at all.

Gee, I wonder why I think you've got an anti-Israel bias.
 
Paul2 said:
Commenting on this thread takes up time, but I’m not doing it to pass the time. I’m here to try to understand better what’s going on over there
Click to expand...

Why? What is your motivation for understanding better what's going on over there?

If it's just knowledge for knowledge's sake, that's entertainment. If you're learning in order to better direct your financial contributions to Hamas, or which weapons systems you're shipping to the IDF, or collecting data to present to your country's military intelligence for use in potential involvement then that wouldn't be entertainment.

I'm not saying outsider curiosity is bad, I'm just saying it serves no function in the actual conflict between the parties actually involved. It's the difference between me admiring Saturn through a telescope and a NASA engineer plotting a course for a robot probe to go there. The former will result in zero outcome outside my own entertainment, the latter will result in action.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I'm not saying outsider curiosity is bad, I'm just saying it serves no function in the actual conflict between the parties actually involved.
Click to expand...

Our interest isn't proportional to our influence, but that influence, though small, is not quite zero. What we think about this conflict can affect how we vote, and that can have consequences for the parties involved. Not in real time, but eventually, to some degree.
 
Nessie said:
An improvement in intelligence gathering and defences to prevent such from happening again. So, more armed guards for settlements and any events near the Gaza border.

An investigation to identify those specifically responsible. That should be on an individual level and in terms of organisation and its leadership. The aim being to arrest and hold those people to account, with an absolute minimal risk to non-combatants. Or, as has been done in the past, targetted killing of combatants, which could be weeks, months or even years later.

Negotiations to prevent an escalation of the violence.
Click to expand...

i.e., Israel surrenders. I'm sure hamas will never do this again after Israel follows your suggestions. after a massacre of 1400 (have you heard the accounts of the videos Israel shared?) and you suggest more armed guards, investigations and some targeted killings? seriously? yep terrorism works.

No country in the world would follow your suggestions. and no one would ask them to, unless its about Israel of course. I don't recall similar suggestions for the US response to 911 where close to 1M Iraqi/Afgan civilians were killed or Black September where 1000's of Palestinians were killed and over 20k were fled/expelled. When ISIS burned a Jordanian pilot king Hussein offered to join the fight himself. ISIS was bombed from the air. did any civilians die? did the UN talk about the burning of the pilot as not having "occurred in a vacuum"?
 
Ziggurat said:
Our interest isn't proportional to our influence, but that influence, though small, is not quite zero. What we think about this conflict can affect how we vote, and that can have consequences for the parties involved. Not in real time, but eventually, to some degree.
Click to expand...

It can also affect our conversations with others outside of this forum, and that can affect how they vote, they correspondence with their elected reps, to whom they donate funds, and how they interact with others and so on.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom