New War In Israel / Gaza

[Heaven]

3 minutes ago, zazen said:

@Nivsch Celebrating injustice is sick and wrong. I think what people mean when they celebrated was that they are celebrating the liberation of breaking free from being caged in by Israel - not the deaths and massacring that Hamas were doing that they were unaware of at the time. 

When wars are won, the winning side celebrate at victory, should they celebrate after so many deaths? Who knows, war is bad for all in general.

 

 

I think the Gazanians celebrated too early.

There is nothing to break free from. Israel wasn’t in control of Gaza before the 7th of October. Keep trying to justify their horrific massacred.

When all of you focusing on the micro. This is the real players.

 

[Nivsch]

@zazen

12:120 = 10%

[zazen]

40 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

@zazen

12:120 = 10%

120 if for the Knesset. 37 are the number of ministers who have more executive power. Out of those ministers 12 went to this event calling for settlement expansion in Gaza which is displacement and ethnic cleansing, which is a subset of genocide, which is ruled as plausible by the ICJ. 

But okay, lets say 10%. Thats still way more involved in some way (by attending this event) in the crime of ethnic cleansing vs 0.04% of people involved in October 7th. Usually there is a investigation done before someone is prosecuted. In this case it was only a allegation - even then, UNRWA sacked those 12 employees and started a investigation. Lets make it 12 criminals x 10 to make it 120 criminals involved in October 7th. Out of 13'000 workers in Gaza thats just about 1%.

So why should a whole organisation that is needed as a life line to people who are undergoing a atrocity be defunded? It's not even being defunded after the atrocity at a separate time but during it and arguably at the most critical time when they need it as validated by the urgency and ruling of the ICJ - the worlds highest court.

If you are unable to empathise with Palestinians lets make this a Jewish example. Lets say during the Holocaust and German persecution of the Jews there was a UN agency aiding and helping Jews who have been persecuted, and within this agency there were a few Jewish members who were part of the Warsaw uprising. Now, should the whole agency be defunded because of a small percentage of workers committing crimes which from their point of view was just resistance anyway? Hope you can see the point and how heartless this is.

Edited January 29 by zazen

[zazen]

49 minutes ago, Heaven said:

There is nothing to break free from. Israel wasn’t in control of Gaza before the 7th of October.

Did Palestinians control their own border of Gaza, water and air space? Define occupation and define terrorism? What are your definitions. 

Why is it known to be occupied territories globally. Pop your own bubble my friend or the harsh reality of avoiding reality will do it for you eventually. 

[Karmadhi]

1 hour ago, Heaven said:

I think the Gazanians celebrated too early.

There is nothing to break free from. Israel wasn’t in control of Gaza before the 7th of October. Keep trying to justify their horrific massacred.

When all of you focusing on the micro. This is the real players.

Iran definitely adds fuel to the fire but the elephant in the room are Israeli's policies. Palestinians would not be influenced by Iran if they were content with what Israel has been doing. It is just that they found aid in Iran for their cause while the rest of the Muslim world slowly abandoned them.

But the creator of that cause are Israeli policies, Iran is just the serviceman that helps Palestine do its attacks.

The motivation and desire for the attacks comes from deep resentment over Israel's actions accumulated in decades.

Edited January 29 by Karmadhi

[Danioover9000]

@zurew

6 hours ago, zurew said:

Regarding the claim 'careless targeting/killing of civilians' here is a tweet, that has a graph that calculates the relative risk rather than just stateing how many civilians were killed. It has multiple wars on it , so you can compare and see all the different relative risk values from different wars.

https://twitter.com/AviBittMD/status/1751718541621928033/photo/1

The idea that the only variable (how many civillians were killed) is adequate enough to establish that Israel indiscriminately killing everyone is an incredibly bad logic and doesn't make much sense at all. The whole idea of discrimination is to measure how much you differentiate killings between militants and civilians - You need to compare militant death to civilian death (per capita).

As you can see on the tweet's graph, relative risk(RR) is calculated this way:  (Militants killed/Militant population) / (Civilians killed/Civilian population). 

Here is his explanation (timestamped) how relative risk is applied in real scenarios:

 

What this fails to account for are the following:

1. This analysis doesn't account for genocidal intent, or acts of genocide.

2. This analysis doesn't account for population displacement.'

3. Fails to account for 70% and more buildings in Gaza getting destroyed, as opposed to WW2's allied forces bombing Germany and it's buildings destroyed are 40%.

4. That analysis fails to account modern technology American weaponry that IDF has, scanning technology, and the ratio of dumb bombs : guided bombs used in these IDF attacks and demolitions of many Gazan buildings. If they used more guided bombs that means they knew how many civilians to militants are exactly, which proves genocidal intent. If they used 2,000 tons of dumb bombs this also proves that they don't care as much about minimizing civilian lose, therefore genocidal intent.

5. This analysis fails to account for the propaganda spoken by Netanyahu and claiming Gazans and Palestinians are 'Amalek' about 4 times, and hundreds of genocidal language by him and his cabinet.

6. This analysis fails to account for starvation tactics by IDF, and making it difficult for AID to reach southern Gazans now, and IDF having so much control over water and food supplies to Gazans. They are literally starving them to death, which adds to the death toll further.

7. Last I remember, IDF approximated that HAMMAs militants total 30,000, out of the 2.5 to 3 million Palestinians in Gaza and some on West Bank, so again this looks suspicious given the amount of buildings getting damaged.

8. Biggest failure point of them all, is that they fail to account that based on many developmental factors like SD stages of development, cognitive and moral development, personality types/traits, 9 stages of ego development(by Jane Loevinger), shadow aspects of the psyche(Carl Jung's Architypes), other lines of development in societal and life domains(Ken Wilbur's Integral Theory), ideological beliefs indoctrinated by culture and society, how every group uses propaganda and misinformation to manufacture consent, and self biases and preferences that shapes worldviews, and how the ego weaponizes facts, data, and statistics to justify hidden assertions of reality.

   No doubt these arguers Destiny, and the other two arguers are well prepared with their statistics and data, and 40 plus war simulations, but all 3 are ignorant to their biases and ideology using them as mouth pieces.

Edited January 29 by Danioover9000

[zazen]

@Danioover9000 Thats a thorough analysis above.

[Nivsch]

@Karmadhi I agree with you on the settlements problem that creates an uncomfortable situation to the palestinians when they want to mobilize within the west bank.

Also I agree about the searches and arrests at night and about cases when a young teen that is being arrested ones in a while which is not justified to my opinion.

Edited January 29 by Nivsch

[zazen]

6 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Of course Israel is an apartheid state that shouldn't be allowed to continue in the same way it functions as of now. 

Some international body should monitor human rights in gaza while Israel maintain control and administration of the entire region. This is my take. If you don't want Israel to take administration, then clean the place of global terror organizations. That would be nice. 

Indians used the non violence & non cooperation to protest against the British rule, so I don't think that's applicable here in this situation. However if the British can do superior administration of the region while funding India at the same time, I have no problem since they would be a net addition to the economy.

I am not going to define terrorism for you. There are designated terrorist groups operating in the area. It should be easy to identify one when you see it. I don't think they will exist soon, atleast in the Gaza strip.

Please don't use the genocide argument. It's war.

According to the highlighted bold words in your post. If they are an apartheid, naturally this will be resisted against. That resistance is then labelled terrorism. If it is easy to identify, why can't you define it? A google search will do, or is that it will lead you to a reality you can't admit to.

The point is different people have used different methods of resistance. Vietnamese, Afghans, Algerians, South Africans during apartheid resisted more violently than India, but the point is their resistance is legitimized, their cause is legit, despite the way they conduct it (with violence).

You will allow the British to administer, but not control the country.  Would you allow the British to have control over India's borders, resources, air space and waters? Exactly. Same for the Palestinians, they are allowed to administer their area, but they don't control it in the way the occupying force of Israel does.

Edited January 29 by zazen

[zurew]

51 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

This analysis doesn't account for genocidal intent, or acts of genocide.

Yes it does, the whole point of that chart is to give a quantitative analysis for indiscriminate genocidal intent and it is a counter to the argument of 'But look at the civilian death numbers' . 

Meaning, that if someone wants to make a counter argument using a quantitative analysis (rather than a qualitative one), then you have to use an even better metric than relative risk (which is used on the chart that I shared). Or you can give a qualitative analysis and counter it that way.

51 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

3. Fails to account for 70% and more buildings in Gaza getting destroyed, as opposed to WW2's allied forces bombing Germany and it's buildings destroyed are 40%.

I don't see how this is relevant. 

If more buildings gets destroyed that establishes somehow that there is an intent of genocide? I think there is a loose correlation between genocidal intent and the amount of buildings getting destroyed. I think Relative risk (RR) is a better metric to use, but if you can give an argument why destroying buildings and genocide is closely related, then i am open to hear about it.

51 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

If they used 2,000 tons of dumb bombs this also proves that they don't care as much about minimizing civilian lose, therefore genocidal intent.

5. This analysis fails to account for the propaganda spoken by Netanyahu and claiming Gazans and Palestinians are 'Amalek' about 4 times, and hundreds of genocidal language by him and his cabinet.

6. This analysis fails to account for starvation tactics by IDF, and making it difficult for AID to reach southern Gazans now, and IDF having so much control over water and food supplies to Gazans. They are literally starving them to death, which adds to the death toll further.

7. Last I remember, IDF approximated that HAMMAs militants total 30,000, out of the 2.5 to 3 million Palestinians in Gaza and some on West Bank, so again this looks suspicious given the amount of buildings getting damaged.

These arguments are fine in terms, that you try to give a qualitative analysis/argument there, which the chart I shared does not want to counter. Again the chart is just a counter argument to the other quantitative analysis of 'but look at the civilian death number'.

Edited January 29 by zurew

[zurew]

Btw if anyone wants to ask some questions to the guy who created the chart, you can do it on twitter right now (he is live):

 

Edited January 29 by zurew

[Karmadhi]

29 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

I agree with you on the settlements problem that creates an uncomfortable situation to the palestinians when they want to mobilize within the west bank.

Also I agree about the searches and arrests at night and about cases when a young teen that is being arrested ones in a while which is not justified to my opinion.

Good to see we have common ground here. Now my question is, are your views common or uncommon in Israel? Since Israel is a democracy, how come if they are common, the politicians do not do anything about it? Also, how come even before this attack, Israel had the most right wing government like ever? How come people like Ben Gvir got in power? I am asking to understand here, not accusing or anything. Would like some insight information regarding how these people managed to get in power. Because I think Israel does not need such radicals, they only add fuel to the fire.

Edited January 29 by Karmadhi

[_Archangel_]

@zazen thank you. I would add 2 things:

1 - It seems to me that Israel has been great in mantaining perfect ties with western Elites, resulting in them being pictured as the good guys in the middle east (national news, journals talk shows, but is diliked more that ever on the street, by poeple.
With Russia (or better, ex USSR) is the exact opposite. Hindered by the mainstream, but moderally supported by a significant chunk of the population expecially in european in Left cirles.

I think this has to do with the fact that now internet propaganda is massive.
So much footage caused poeple to take a big turn away from Israel and Israelis don't know how to counter this if not from above.
Instead, when the USSR was a thing Leftist, supported  them, if not because of shared values, for a blind opposition to US values.
All of this spilled over to today's Russia. 

2 - Some suggest the future wolrd order is going to be a-polaristic.
The economic dimention is becoming more and more important, and further developements will make almost every country leader in some aspect of trade. (oil, sectorial technologies, third sector abilities, banking).
This way most countries won't be totally subgected to a regional power.
 

[Nivsch]

@Karmadhi I am sure most Israelis if will be asked won't like the settlement ever expansion and won't want to arrest children sometimes.

The "Israel" being seen from this forum lens is only the deep right wing. 

Edited January 29 by Nivsch

[Nivsch]

@zazen The comparison is wrong because:

1. Murder isn't comparable to settle peacefully without violent intent and don't show me the 0.01% extremists.

2. UNRWA is in my impression connected to terror more than just through bad apples and I wrote what I think above.

Edited January 29 by Nivsch

[Bobby_2021]

47 minutes ago, zazen said:

If they are an apartheid, naturally this will be resisted against. That resistance is then labelled terrorism

If resistance is in the form of raping & killing Israeli women and taking many more civilians as hostage ,then terrorism is indeed the right label. 

Doing such barbaric acts in a different country would easily be enough grounds for provocation of war with that country. 

That is what is happening. War.

Not resistance. Not genocide. War.

When you declare war, for whatever reasons, you should be prepared to fight it. It's right to say hamas invited a war with Israel and the civilians are paying the price for it. 

[Danioover9000]

@zurew

52 minutes ago, zurew said:

Yes it does, the whole point of that chart is to give a quantitative analysis for indiscriminate genocidal intent and it is a counter to the argument of 'But look at the civilian death numbers' . 

Meaning, that if someone wants to make a counter argument using a quantitative analysis (rather than a qualitative one), then you have to use an even better metric than relative risk (which is used on the chart that I shared). Or you can give a qualitative analysis and counter it that way.

I don't see how this is relevant. 

If more buildings gets destroyed that establishes somehow that there is an intent of genocide? I think there is a loose correlation between genocidal intent and the amount of buildings getting destroyed. I think Relative risk (RR) is a better metric to use, but if you can give an argument why destroying buildings and genocide is closely related, then i am open to hear about it.

These arguments are fine in terms, that you try to give a qualitative analysis/argument there, which the chart I shared does not want to counter. Again the chart is just a counter argument to the other quantitative analysis of 'but look at the civilian death number'.

   OMG, that's exactly like how Paul Eckman's work was paid and funded by DARPA, CIA, FBI and border security, for national defense reasons in the USA. They just funded his 'science project' and wanted a codified facial data set, call it 'SCIENCE' and 'quantifiable SCIENCE' and get away who their pseudo science meanwhile virtue signaling they're so OBJECTIVE. You're falling into this trap they do as well:

   Albeit I made some counter arguments of her presentation that Body language analysis is a Pseudoscience, I can't help but see a parallel with you and those DARPA that wanted to codify Paul Eckman's work based on faulty science methodology.

 

   Point 3 is relevant because when all is said and done, how are Palestinians going back to their homes? If HAMMAs is destroyed, do Gazans get to return to their ruined north Gaza? Do they have homes still in the middle and south of Gaza? Like do you not see how relevant this is to Genocidal intent mate? BTW Palestinians will NEVER SURRENDER THEIR LANDS TO ISRAEL! Palestinians will keep on trying to live in what's available land for them, even if Israel demolishes every hospital, every school, every apartment and houses Palestinians will return to try to rebuild what's left. Question is that why are you not factoring the destruction of their buildings as part of genocidal intent? I think that's relevant here, cuz meanwhile most Gazans are outdoors in sough Gaza starving to death and with little shelter. Same for all the other points I made. Imagine if Nazi Germany went their genocide of Jews differently, they didn't kill them at all, but they sure as hell made life very difficult for them, destroyed most of their communities and homes, restricted their water and food, made genocidal rhetoric against them, dehumanized the Jews, therefore in your logic because they never killed Jews Nazi Germany never genodcided them??? COME ON BRO.

 

43 minutes ago, zurew said:

Btw if anyone wants to ask some questions to the guy who created the chart, you can do it on twitter right now (he is live):

 

   I personally don't care about some rando's chart, might as well be crayons and call it 'BRO SCIENCE, YOU KNOW SCIENCE?!' or 'FACTS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE FEELING!', like if I have to point out that the real purpose of arguing and debating so to persuade and convince others to adopt your POV, but in reality it's the SURVIVAL of your ego and ideology to mid infect other's perspectives, then we can't argue. I'm just right.

[Danioover9000]

@Bobby_2021

2 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

If resistance is in the form of raping & killing Israeli women and taking many more civilians as hostage ,then terrorism is indeed the right label. 

Doing such barbaric acts in a different country would easily be enough grounds for provocation of war with that country. 

That is what is happening. War.

Not resistance. Not genocide. War.

When you declare war, for whatever reasons, you should be prepared to fight it. It's right to say hamas invited a war with Israel and the civilians are paying the price for it. 

   By that logic, Nazi Germany did nothing wrong when they did Poland in together with Russia, and when the Allies declared war they're innocent, by your logic they can just excuse whatever terrorist acts from Poland, or from the Allied forces or resistance fighters in Germany as acts of terror, and justify their actions then.  

[Bobby_2021]

7 hours ago, zurew said:

Regarding the claim 'careless targeting/killing of civilians' here is a tweet, that has a graph that calculates the relative risk rather than just stateing how many civilians were killed. It has multiple wars on it , so you can compare and see all the different relative risk values from different wars.

https://twitter.com/AviBittMD/status/1751718541621928033/photo/1

The idea that the only variable (how many civillians were killed) is adequate enough to establish that Israel indiscriminately killing everyone is an incredibly bad logic and doesn't make much sense at all. The whole idea of discrimination is to measure how much you differentiate killings between militants and civilians - You need to compare militant death to civilian death (per capita).

As you can see on the tweet's graph, relative risk(RR) is calculated this way:  (Militants killed/Militant population) / (Civilians killed/Civilian population). 

Here is his explanation (timestamped) how relative risk is applied in real scenarios:

 

If this is true, then their entire narrative collapses. Brilliant explanation. 

[zurew]

 

@Danioover9000

I see you going on a rant and got triggered for some reason, you should cool down before you give a response.

15 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

You're falling into this trap they do as well:

Im not falling in any trap, I shared how RR is calculated and what it supposed to represent and what specific argument it supposed to counter and thats it. Now you are connecting this to a whole narrative and other stuff that wasn't mentioned or said at all.

20 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

Point 3 is relevant because when all is said and done, how are Palestinians going back to their homes? If HAMMAs is destroyed, do Gazans get to return to their ruined north Gaza? Do they have homes still in the middle and south of Gaza? Like do you not see how relevant this is to Genocidal intent mate?

23 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

dehumanized the Jews, therefore in your logic because they never killed Jews Nazi Germany never genodcided them??? COME ON BRO.

I don't know why you are making strawman arguments. You are not even trying to be good faith.

I never said there is no connection between destroying buildings to genocide intent, all I said was that alone destroying buildings has a loose correlation to genocide intent.

Regarding the Nazi argument. Nazis did kill millions of Jews and if we were to take a look at RR(relative risk) regarding them, then the calculation would show an obvious genocide, without looking at how many buildings were or werent destroyed. 

Edited January 29 by zurew