Nivsch

Member
  • Content count

    1,851
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Nivsch


  1. 8 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

    @Nivsch Sure but do not cry about people being anti semitism or hating on Israel or zionism.

    People do not like land thieves.

    When you were almost been killed in a war initiated by 6 Arab countries, and now you try to push them back to ensure your survival, while within the country the war takes on a totally civil character between the Jews and the Arabs, you will obviously in this moments see all the arabs as a solid unit (without nuances) and won't always do the most efficient or moral or clean thing for example stealing of private lands. This is very understanble to me in this situation. A private or collective property of someone is a joke when you are just trying to stay alive.


  2. @Karmadhi Those lands been taken during a war the Arabs initiated, in which the Jews were even in an inferiority position and almost lost. but then, changed their attitude from mainly defence to mainly attack, and against most odds - survived. This is war, and both side have equal responsibility to the consequences and even more so the side who started it.


  3. @Raze Yes, there is a problem here in the way the fire is, sometimes, used in a too loose way when children are being hurted or killed from that, what could be avoided quite easily and therefore cannot be justified by any explanation.

    It won't be fair to dismiss these cases as just a technical problem, but rather a symptom of a deeper general problem of moral development but mainly in some troop squads that lack this moral sense probably more than the average center of gravity of the culture.

    In every such a big army, to those specific sub groups of troops (which are maybe less moral than the average) to not be too-easy in their use of fire, the average of IDF were to be in tier two which is unrealistic today in any nation anyway.

    This in no way means the problem should not be addressed seriously within the IDF, but what it comes to say is, when pretending to take extreme cases and from them critisize an entire country, the critisim must be taken in a proper proportions and relative to realistic outcomes in a western world average context. Otherwise the critism will be misleading and hypocrite.


  4. 2 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

    @Vrubel

       And? That's a different argument related adjacent to the other arguments we've been having. The argument we're focused on is the humanitarian crisis caused by israel onto Palestinians from the West Bank, to Gaza, and even to Israeli Palestinians by the alt right Zionists within Israel, israel expansionism of a greater israel at the cost of some Palestinians dying and suffering, and related is the problems of the israel lobby movement within the USA leveraging thier support of israel. So John Mearsheimer's argument is specifically in regards to the humanitarian crisis and against Zionists wanting to genocide the Palestinians for a greater israel. What John Mearsheimer isn't argueing for or against is HAMAs and Hezbollah specifically, and whether it's justified for isreal to exterminate HAMAs or Hezbollah, John is more focused on the lose of life of civilians by israel's military, so I think this 'downplaying' is merely another argument that he isn't making, that you're assuming he's making.

       What people don't get is how integrated HAMAs is to Gaza and even the West Bank, and Hezbollah is to southern Lebanon, and the military actions of israel radicalizing Muslims who may have been centrist, or slightly right or left leaning, to be polarized into strongly supporting Hezbollah or HAMAs due to fears of israel invading into their areas. By israel ethnic cleansing it's borders, the attempt will create collateral damage to Gaza, to West Bank, and if the situation escalates, to southern Lebanon. Can you imagine the cost of life if israel isn't held down by the USA? Do you know how many lives will get killed and suffer from israel invading? It's almost guaranteed that lose of civilian life will be far greater than estimated.

       How is the whole apartheid BS? What is a better parallel to this situation? Nazi Germany?

       And how would you lead and manage this conflict against HAMAs and Hezbollah, while minimizing cost to civilian lives caught in the crossfires, by sophisticated technological weaponry by israel's weapons versus HAMA's own?  

    1. What humanitarian crisis there is in the west bank? Beside the water quality problem. In gaza there is I agree.

    2. "Israel expansionism to the greater Israel in the cost of palesitnians dying"?

    Who said the goal is to reach "greater Israel"? This is at most a projection of the podcaster.

    How does the settlememts expansion cause palestinians dying? This is only true when an extremist settler do its own deal but not a regular scenario. 

    3. Zionists want to genocide? This is also a projection in the mind of the podcaster.

    4. The military action radicalize muslims - I agree with you. But what is the alternative? To get out of the west bank?

    5. Israel's "ethnic cleansing in the borders"? How so? The threat near the border is by Radwan force which is 100% a terorrist group.

    6. "appartheid"?

    Can you give an exmple?


  5. 2 hours ago, Vrubel said:


    He downplays the threat posed by Hamas and Hezbollah. He argues there is no existential threat to Israel. That's not true. The existential threat for Israel is that it cannot exist as a state when terrorists whether from Hamas or Hezbollah can do savage incursions from time to time. That's why Israel has to cleanse these groups off its borders.

    What people don't get is that it is insanity for Israel to just let Hamas and Hezbollah off the hook and do a ceasefire. Israel has to literally cleanse its borders from such organizations if it wants to continue to exist as a state. You have no right to exist if you cannot defend your people from rape, murder and kidnapping. 

    Also, the whole apartheid narrative is bullshit or at the very least intellectually dishonest. Palestinians in Gaza are ruled by Hamas, and Palestinians in the West Bank by the PA with Israeli security control to break up terrorist organizing. And Israeli Arabs have full rights without even the duty to serve. 

    👍🔥


  6. On 9.11.2023 at 10:07 PM, DawnC said:

    I think that these points are routed in two misconceptions.

    Essentially, I think that you believe that the root cause of Palestinian aggression is the situation with Israel, and you think Israel has the power to solve it due to their position of strength. I don't think that's true at all. First of all, you have to consider the possibility that Palestinian society and leadership don't want peace and they don't want anything that will maintain the state of Israel. Westerners have difficulty grasping this, but the reality is that some cultures actually embrace violence and some societies actually value war and even the killing of the innocent. Westerners tend to think that 'everybody just wants to have peace' or 'everybody is like us because we are all human.' This is a fundamental misconception. Yes, we are all human. So was Stalin, and so was Saddam Hussein. The Mongols and Nazis were also human. That doesn't mean that they didn't value genocide or brutal raiding and territorial expansion.

    The second thing is, that I know it makes sense to claim that Israel's control radicalizes them, and if Israel didn't control them, this wouldn't happen. I just don't think that's entirely true. And I think there is nothing worse for Palestinian society than self-governing. The situation will deteriorate into something like what happened in Syria or Yemen. Take a look for example at Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. The Palestinian society is no different (in fact, it's worse). Consider also the internal conflict between Hamas and the PLO in 2006. The events of the past 100 years suggest that this is a deeply ingrained aspect of Palestinian society. They exhibit violent behavior, not just towards Israel but towards themselves. And this pattern persists no matter what happens with Israel. Regardless of whether Israel had a state or not, regardless if in was during the occupation or not, before and after Israel left Gaza. This violent mentality has persisted. I think there is nothing that Israel can do, within the realm of reason that will not result in their own existential serious risk, which would change this fundamental issue. I'm not saying it can't change, but there is no indication from the past century that this change is foreseeable. Israel can make wise or unwise policy choices, but the power to fundamentally resolve this issue is beyond their reach. 

    The second misconception is the belief that understanding someone's perspective implies the need to appease them. I can understand why Germany descended into Nazism after WWI. The Treaty of Versailles humiliated them, there were dire economic conditions, and some other factors. But that doesn't mean their regime wasn't utterly barbaric and didn't need to be dealt with using force. You see, when someone is at your door with a rifle, intent on brutally killing you and your family, you kill them. Afterwards you can investigate if he had a difficult childhood. That is what any reasonable, life-cherishing actor would do.

    Some more specific points:

    1.I understand what you're saying. But historically, it wasn't always the case. Jews endured a Holocaust and did not commit such atrocities systematically. 

    2. + 3. Israelis have endured ongoing terror attacks since the establishment of their state, including many suicide bombings and tens of thousands of rockets targeted at the civilian population over the years (imagine growing up with the constant sound of rocket alarms). Terrorism has a profound effect on a society (consider 9/11 as an extreme example). For many years, their state also faced a genuine survival challenge. This is not a walk in the park, and it profoundly impacts a society. In any case, in reality, they are actually much less ruthless (much much less) and much more inclined towards seeking peace (much much more). This is not solely a consequence of the power imbalance btw. These differing moral standards were present before 1948.

    4. I don't see it that way because I believe that historical decisions made by the Palestinians have led to the current situation, making it nearly unavoidable. In my view, a society that initiated war and subsequently lost it is not in a position to dictate the terms. And when they continue with violence, they shouldn't be viewed as the victims (and thus I don't view the Israelis as the aggressors). 

    Anyway, of course I hold Israel to a higher standard because it is a liberal democracy. But I understand the very difficult military situation they are facing, and I recognize Hamas's manipulation of numbers and civilian statistics, as well as militant tactics that deliberately endanger civilians. I also acknowledge that in any conflict, atrocities unfortunately occur. In relative terms, I believe Israel is acting reasonably. They are not intentionally targeting civilians. They are allowing them to evacuate. And yes, they are determined to neutralize Hamas's militant capabilities and secure the release of their hostages. This is war, and it's not a pleasant situation.

    +1 ❤

    I know this is from a month ago but this must be jumped to the top again and get more credit.

    By DawnC 🌅 


  7. @zazen It wasn't to justify anything but to add an another underrated parameter into the equation.

    You write many big words ("mistreat", "governed", "colonialism", "aphartheid") ungrounded in anything tangible and explicable I can answer too. This is no more than a very big helium balloon.

    Again it is recommended to Israel to stop build anything new and in that way offer an agreement based on this.

    But in the other hand Israel has initiated countless offers mediated by many players that could also put an end to the settlements expansion but was refused by the palestinians again and again.


  8. 1 hour ago, zazen said:

    At what point do the extreme edge cases become the normalised viewpoint reflecting the politics and society of a country? 

    At this thread, unfortunatly.

    I responded to a claim by its same logic to show the ridiculousness of taking an edge case and projecting it so loosely as it is "Israel".

    About the rest of your message, when you take a society who has just got traumatized as was never before and Gazans are celebrating and dancing in the streets to that, what else do you expect to hear?

    I really don't understand.


  9. @Karmadhi Actually the education I went through was quite pluralistic and about respecting others and differences. Yes of course we have learned also about our enemies and etc but only in the sense that Israel went through wars and peace agreements, but not about that anyone is evil or that we have to eliminate someone. Not at all.

    I can't say there aren't schools that teach more fanatic ideas as you mentioned, but I think they represent a minority. If you can send me the links and I will watch and relate.


  10. @Karmadhi I really don't know to say how it can be done practically except that this is the insight I started to feel about this issue. The spiral dynamics strategy for example has already tried to be implemented, but it is still not a broad or deep enough strategy by itself, if we assume that stages are not the only factor but also cultural qualities and dominant psychological barriers which are unique to every culture.


  11. There is nothing racist in saying a person (or a collective group) has problems with how he or she percieves himself or herself and other people intentions about him/her. The same problem can be expressed in a collective way too, and every collective group has its own weaknesses and strengths. I am not saying the Jews are better, but they just have weaknesses in other places.