New War In Israel / Gaza

[hundreth]

9 minutes ago, Sucuk Ekmek said:

This is getting interesting Belgium wants sanctions against Israel. Looks like USA is loosing influence.

https://www.reuters.com/world/belgium-wants-sanctions-against-israel-gaza-bombings-deputy-pm-2023-11-08/

Quote

At the same time, she said, Belgium should increase funding for the International Criminal Court in The Hague to investigate the bombings while cutting money flows to Hamas.

“This is a terrorist organization. Terror costs money and there must be sanctions on the companies and people who provide Hamas with money," De Sutter said. With the war now entering its second month, UN officials and G7 nations stepped up appeals for a humanitarian pause in the hostilities to help alleviate the suffering in Gaza, where buildings have been flattened and basic supplies are running out. Palestinian officials say more than 10,000 people have been killed, 40% of them children.

Lol I have a feeling this help Israel more than harm it when all is said and done.

[Nivsch]

1. Yes but It doesn't justify a promil of its actions.

2. Yes the palestinians have suffered from this conflict what has caused radicalization, but that wouldn't happen without their initial tendency to be that way, even before Israel, what we can see in the mufti of jerusalem and his values that were similar to hamas's, and probably reflect some part of the population that lived here. All of that even before the "help" from Israel.

6 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

many are orphans whose parents were killed by Israel. Meanwhile IDF soldiers are usually first world boys who never had any pain come from them from Gaza

Not true. More than 1,100 Israeli citizens had been murdered during 2nd intifada in early 00's by hamas terrorists from west bank mainly but not only.

3. Agree

4. But Israel attacks in Gaza almost always only after being provoked and Israel has never declared it has a goal to eliminate the palestinians but hamas did declare it wants to eliminate Israel. I think the Jews established Israel are in one way occupiers but not less than that if not even more - refugees. therefore the picture is very complex.

Edited November 9, 2023 by Nivsch

[Alex M]

On 08/11/2023 at 10:07 AM, Twentyfirst said:

It's an ethnic cleansing

You don't understand what ethnic cleansing is. Go and read about the Khmer Rouge, the War in Bosnia, Sudan in the late 80s, the Hutu in Rwanda, Congo Civil War. This will give you a much deeper insight into what ethnic cleansing looks like.

Edited November 9, 2023 by Alex M

[DawnC]

7 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

@DawnC  @Nivsch @DawnC I dont think any sane person would say that Hamas fighters are more humane than the IDF, however there are factors to consider.

1. Hamas is way weaker so it will be more ruthless.

2. Hamas fighters have suffered a lot under Israel so they have reasons to be ruthless, many are orphans whose parents were killed by Israel. Meanwhile IDF soldiers are usually first world boys who never had any pain come from them from Gaza so their brutality is a lot less justifiable.

3. Israel is more educated, more developed society so their brutality is less acceptable. We hold them on higher standards.

4. Israel is an occupier and therefore its aggresson is seen as more unfair than Hamas agression which is that of the occupied fighting back (although inhumanely).

I dont know what you think on these points.

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.

Edited November 9, 2023 by DawnC

[Loveeee]

47 minutes ago, DawnC said:

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). 

 

[DawnC]

35 minutes ago, Loveeee said:

 

@Loveeee

Memes aside, What I wrote genuinely reflects my perspective. I believe it's neither superficial nor rooted in ignorance or prejudice. If you have a mature counter perspective, I'm all ears.

[Karmadhi]

4 hours ago, Nivsch said:

But Israel attacks in Gaza almost always only after being provoked and Israel has never declared it has a goal to eliminate the palestinians but hamas did declare it wants to eliminate Israel. I think the Jews established Israel are in one way occupiers but not less than that if not even more - refugees. therefore the picture is very complex.

You need to understand that in the eyes of Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims and even most of Western liberals Israel started this by kicking out 750.000 Palestinians and murdering many during the Nakba. EVERYTHING after that is a response to it.

If you steal my house then do not be suprised if I attack you back, I am not provocing you. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=nakba+territory+loss&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjR4MnbgriCAxU53wIHHffRABkQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=nakba+territory+loss&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzoHCAAQigUQQzoFCAAQgAQ6BggAEAgQHjoICAAQgAQQsQM6CQgAEAgQHhDHAzoECAAQHjoHCAAQGBCABFCgBljKJmCYJ2gCcAB4AIABUIgBhgiSAQIyM5gBAKABAaoBC2d3cy13aXotaW1nwAEB&sclient=img&ei=i2RNZZHvIbm-i-gP96ODyAE&bih=739&biw=1536&rlz=1C1GCEU_enBE1021BE1021#imgrc=HdcFBp_OeyH9PM

All the territory taken by Israel after 1947 UN creating Israel which the world agreed upon (mostly) is pure theft and people have the right to be angry about it.

You can make the argument that the Jews should have a state there but the territory granted to you by the UN is that of 1947, any territory on top of that is land you stole illegally. Kicking out 750.000 people is proof of that. You do not kick out that many people if the land is actually yours.

 

[Karmadhi]

2 hours ago, DawnC said:

nd yes, they are determined to neutralize Hamas's militant capabilities and secure the release of their hostages.

Killing 50 civilians for 1 Hamas fighter death is not acceptable and is barbaric. It reminds me of Stalin who said once: "If we kill 50 people and 1 of them is an enemy of the state then we did a good job". That is the level Israel has fallen into. Sad.

You need to think why the support for Palestine is so big and growing especially among educated western liberals. Why UN said that Israel is commiting a ton of war crimes. Why many governments even in the West (Ireland, Spain, even Belgium today) are saying Israel is going too far and they should be punished. 

Say whatever you want but if half the people you kill are kids, 10000% innocent kids, you are doing a shit job.

Israel is basically devolving into Russia level of warfare conducting. Mass shelling civilians, cutting out electricity, water etc.

They will for sure become the most hated country in the world by the end of the year. I wonder how will that actually make Jews around the world feel safe (quoting Leo here).

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Karmadhi

[Raze]

 

 

[Karmadhi]

3 hours ago, DawnC said:

In relative terms, I believe Israel is acting reasonably

https://www.commondreams.org/news/israel-gaza-bombing

Focusing on destruction not precision is the issue here. If they focused on precision and not destruction then I would understand. But if your official spokeperson of the army says this then how can I argue with him? They admit it. 

[Karmadhi]

 

Beautiful video.

 

[MuadDib]

1 hour ago, Karmadhi said:

 

Beautiful video.

 

 

[Willie]

[DawnC]

7 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

Killing 50 civilians for 1 Hamas fighter death is not acceptable and is barbaric. It reminds me of Stalin who said once: "If we kill 50 people and 1 of them is an enemy of the state then we did a good job". That is the level Israel has fallen into. Sad.

You need to think why the support for Palestine is so big and growing especially among educated western liberals. Why UN said that Israel is commiting a ton of war crimes. Why many governments even in the West (Ireland, Spain, even Belgium today) are saying Israel is going too far and they should be punished. 

Say whatever you want but if half the people you kill are kids, 10000% innocent kids, you are doing a shit job.

Israel is basically devolving into Russia level of warfare conducting. Mass shelling civilians, cutting out electricity, water etc.

They will for sure become the most hated country in the world by the end of the year. I wonder how will that actually make Jews around the world feel safe (quoting Leo here).

 

But you see, I don't think your perception here is accurate at all. Comparing Israel to Russia is simply absurd. Doesn't it bother you that this is exactly what Hamas wants? They want people in the West to pressure Israel so they can get away with what they are doing. See what I wrote here a few days ago:

The numbers you are taking seriously originate from Hamas (which had no problem lying to you about the hospital bombing). You don't take into account the fact that Hamas uses teenagers as militants and later regards them as children casualties. You forget that there are hundreds of misfired rockets, like the one fired at the hospital. You don't take into account that Hamas dresses its militants in regular clothes to later classify them as civilians. You also don't address the fact that Hamas pays civilians to participate in war efforts and then counts them as civilians (as seen 7/10).

From a strategic perspective, you misunderstand the fact that Hamas has a strategic goal of having the most children and civilian casualties possible and doesn't place much value on civilian's lives, while Israel is genuinely concerned about their image as they need European and US support. So, even if they were to desire such actions, they are aware that it would be a major strategic mistake. You also fail to consider the fact that Hamas uses children as human shields to protect its militants when they are targeting civilians (for example, shooting rockets from schools or civilian houses) and that is a very difficult situation to deal with militarily.

So, in your view, the right thing for Israel is to provide electricity and water to enemy bunkers during war (where their civilians are being targeted by intentional rocket attacks) and to put their own soldiers' lives in incredible danger because Hamas tactics involve placing civilians in the crossfire. Do you think that's a reasonable criterion to set? Should Israel also avoid shooting at any location where there are civilians? This is not how conflicts operate. If Israel were to adopt such measures, any Hamas militant could take advantage of the situation, and they will not be able to get even to one of them. Should Hamas be granted immunity because of their horrific tactics? Should the Israelis be more receptive to Western critics influenced by Hamas propaganda? 

What do you think?

Anyway, I can still have criticism about an attack here or there. But I believe the important thing here is that I'm not conflating criticism of the accepted level of collateral damage (with people who actually care about that) in some specific attacks with moral equivalence. The fact that I have criticism about the Allies bombing Dresden doesn't make them morally equivalent to the Nazis. It's not solely about examining individual tragedies (which can be heartbreaking). The broader picture is more important.

 

[Nivsch]

55 minutes ago, DawnC said:

But you see, I don't think your perception here is accurate at all. Comparing Israel to Russia is simply absurd. Doesn't it bother you that this is exactly what Hamas wants? They want people in the West to pressure Israel so they can get away with what they are doing. See what I wrote here a few days ago:

The numbers you are taking seriously originate from Hamas (which had no problem lying to you about the hospital bombing). You don't take into account the fact that Hamas uses teenagers as militants and later regards them as children casualties. You forget that there are hundreds of misfired rockets, like the one fired at the hospital. You don't take into account that Hamas dresses its militants in regular clothes to later classify them as civilians. You also don't address the fact that Hamas pays civilians to participate in war efforts and then counts them as civilians (as seen 7/10).

From a strategic perspective, you misunderstand the fact that Hamas has a strategic goal of having the most children and civilian casualties possible and doesn't place much value on civilian's lives, while Israel is genuinely concerned about their image as they need European and US support. So, even if they were to desire such actions, they are aware that it would be a major strategic mistake. You also fail to consider the fact that Hamas uses children as human shields to protect its militants when they are targeting civilians (for example, shooting rockets from schools or civilian houses) and that is a very difficult situation to deal with militarily.

So, in your view, the right thing for Israel is to provide electricity and water to enemy bunkers during war (where their civilians are being targeted by intentional rocket attacks) and to put their own soldiers' lives in incredible danger because Hamas tactics involve placing civilians in the crossfire. Do you think that's a reasonable criterion to set? Should Israel also avoid shooting at any location where there are civilians? This is not how conflicts operate. If Israel were to adopt such measures, any Hamas militant could take advantage of the situation, and they will not be able to get even to one of them. Should Hamas be granted immunity because of their horrific tactics? Should the Israelis be more receptive to Western critics influenced by Hamas propaganda? 

What do you think?

Anyway, I can still have criticism about an attack here or there. But I believe the important thing here is that I'm not conflating criticism of the accepted level of collateral damage (with people who actually care about that) in some specific attacks with moral equivalence. The fact that I have criticism about the Allies bombing Dresden doesn't make them morally equivalent to the Nazis. It's not solely about examining individual tragedies (which can be heartbreaking). The broader picture is more important.

 

🎯🥇

Edited November 10, 2023 by Nivsch

[Merkabah Star]

8 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

 

Beautiful video.

 

Such a beautiful, peaceful man and story! He is love. 

[Karmadhi]

5 hours ago, DawnC said:

What do you think?

I think that Israel s issue here is this: 

Focusing on destruction not precision is the issue here. If they focused on precision and not destruction then I would understand. But if your official spokeperson of the army says this then how can I argue with him? They admit it. 

https://www.commondreams.org/news/israel-gaza-bombing.

This is not acceptable. I am not denying some civilians would die but when you focus on precision the number is reduced. They are admittingly not doing it. The 80 civilians for 1 Hamas is direct proof of it. Leo, most liberals, UN, many governments are very critical of this policy. 

 

[zazen]

 

 

Edited November 10, 2023 by zazen

[DawnC]

2 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

I think that Israel s issue here is this: 

Focusing on destruction not precision is the issue here. If they focused on precision and not destruction then I would understand. But if your official spokeperson of the army says this then how can I argue with him? They admit it. 

https://www.commondreams.org/news/israel-gaza-bombing.

This is not acceptable. I am not denying some civilians would die but when you focus on precision the number is reduced. They are admittingly not doing it. The 80 civilians for 1 Hamas is direct proof of it. Leo, most liberals, UN, many governments are very critical of this policy. 

 

The link is broken. 

Note that there are more than two options - this isn't precision vs. destruction. Disabling Hamas involves disrupting their ability to rule, govern, initiate attacks, control the Gaza strip, set traps for ground forces, manage the battlefield and many other abilities. This requires more than just precision and cannot be labeled as merely unjustified destruction.

If the ratio they aimed for was 1-80, the percentage of civilian casualties would be 99%. This extreme ratio is not supported even by the most biased anti-Israeli sources, which often fail to address any of the complexities I mentioned earlier (Hamas deceptions). I didn't observe any attacks resulting in 80 to 1 ratios. Even if such incidents occurred, don't mistake isolated cases for a continual policy. I think this is an exaggeration that again fails to see the big picture. Btw, if an IDF spokesperson actually admitted to an attack with such a ratio, I think it's actually making them more reliable. Consider whether nations like Russia, would openly admit to similar actions. A country with a deliberate intention to indiscriminately kill civilians (or even with a 1 to 80 ratio policy) wouldn't likely publicize this.

I think you should also address the very difficult dilemma and genuinely ask yourself questions about it, as it's easy to simply suggest they should be more precise. Ask yourself: What would Hamas do if they knew that surrounding themselves with 50 civilians would grant immunity? Wouldn't they exploit it to protect themselves? When facing adversaries who exploit civilian shields, what alternative strategies can be employed? Can a strict policy of never attacking, regardless of circumstances, be a sustainable approach in such warfare? To what extent should military forces prioritize the protection of civilians over achieving strategic objectives? Can there be effective military deterrence without causing significant civilian harm when you are fighting an organization that uses civilians like Hamas? Are there historical examples of successful military campaigns that minimized civilian casualties in the way you suggest? How would you respond if adopting a policy to never attack (regardless of the circumstances) in situations with such ratios meant that every Hamas militant, particularly those in high-ranking positions, would consistently surround themselves with as many civilians as possible? What would you do if avoiding those attacks meant putting your soldiers in life-threatening situations by the thousands? What would you do if the precision tactic you were advocating made it impossible to carry out any attacks at all? I can go on and on. These are not abstract philosophical questions, these are the actual dilemmas the Israelis are confronting. I think It's important to understand the militant situation, to understand what Hamas is, and then to contemplate those questions seriously. I'm not sure people actually do that before suggesting their simplistic solutions.

Should the US and the world pressure Israel to minimize the ratio? From a global perspective, I think they should. I think it's good to have oversight and prevent getting carried away. But that doesn't change any of the points I mentioned earlier (including the moral stance on this matter and Hamas deceptions). And just to be clear again, I don't think every attack by Israel is moral, and that Israelis are angels. I'm not in the business of searching for angels and devils but rather in choosing the lesser evil. And after contemplating the questions above, in my view, Israel's actions fall within the spectrum of reason. I try not to suggest moral restrictions to others that I believe I wouldn't apply to myself. In this case, I think that's what most people are doing. 

And let's not even delve into the UN . A place where countries like Syria get to condemn Israel for bombing civilians, and nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia get to vote on matters of women's rights. This is not an organization that can be taken seriously in any way.

Edited November 10, 2023 by DawnC

[Karmadhi]

57 minutes ago, DawnC said:

This is not an organization that can be taken seriously in any way

I take it 100 times more seriously than a government caught many times in lying and that is openly racist.

This is how your country treats Ethiopian JEWS because they are not "white enough". Disgusting

Israel Admits Targeting Ethiopian Jews for Compulsory Contraception | Center for Genetics and Society (Link cannot be send, just google it and you will find it).

Are Ethiopian Jews Israel's second-class citizens? – DW – 09/29/2018

You can find many articles showing different treatment of non white jews.

How can I take such a country seriously when it comes to them dealing with other ethnic groups? When they do this to their OWN PEOPLE just because they are not "white enough".

Edited November 10, 2023 by Karmadhi