History in the making, Part 2, V.2 - Israel/Palestine - NO RELIGION

Driven5 said:

Is there a limit to how many times more Palestinian babies killed by Israel than were killed by HAMAS that will be 'too many' to justify the continued aggression?

Well, any death statistics are highly dubious. Case in point -  the Hospital that was allegedly bombed by the Israelis with 500 people dead. Well then we found out that the bomb hit the parking lot, not the hospital. Then we found out that it was probably a Hamas misfire in the first place. I'm sure that Israel pumps up their stats as well, but it's just to illustrate the dearth of unbiased information.  

But the history has been disproportionate response, as illustrated in the graph above. The question is to what extent that strategy works? Does 5:1 do it? 10:1? 50:1? 1000:1?

I think that we have to assume that Islamist  aggression against Israel is a pot that's never going to be empty. Whether it's Hamas, Isis, Hezbolah, Iran or some group that doesn't even exist yet. There's little reason for optimism. So my suggestion is for Israel to be as humane as possible, while understanding that they are and will for the foreseeable future, be in the crosshairs.   

I mean, how would we feel if someone told us "The United States is yours, but the watershed area for the Mississippi, Washington DC, and all but 100 miles of the Eastern seaboard will be owned by Russia".

Yeah, I don't think we'd be ok with that. I'm pretty sure we'd be very serious about pursuing expansionism, regardless of whether or not it looked "fair" on a map. 

In reply to RevRico :

One aspect of these numbers that is also relevant is intent.

I cannot say with certainty the Israelis have never intended to kill civilians (it certainly happens a LOT) but they at do claim not to.  Hamas, and the groups before them, are very clear, and generally proud of their focusing on killing civilians, including, apparently, their own (as martyrs, in the case of setting them up for being killed).

To be fair, it is not like Hamas does not want to kill soldiers, but it's clearly more difficult. In a slightly twisted logic, you could say most all Israeli civilians are soldiers because of compulsory service of course.

In reply to SV reX :

Except that's not really how this is.  We already own the US (leaving aside, for the moment, the US's own problematic history).

In your scenario, we're more like the Palestinians than the Israelis.

Your scenario is like the UN decided in 1947 that all Americans were going to be given free land in Canada; say, Ontario and Quebec.  All those existing Canadians would be forcibly relocated to the western provinces in order to make room for us.

Would that justify us deciding that we should own the Maritimes, too?

There are no good guys here. I'm wrapping my head around this still. This is not an endorsement of either side.

In D&D alignment terms, I feel like Israel is sort of Lawful Neutral and HAMAS is Chaotic Evil.

I get the impression that Israel has basically decided that the only language that people in the region will recognize is overwhelming force. That restraint and partial measures will be seen as weakness. They won't hit first, but if someone hits them, they WILL hit back harder. They WILL have the final word. If collateral damage is inevitable, so be it.

HAMAS positions themselves in locations where Israel can't counterattack without collateral damage. Israel seems to have taken the position of, "So be it. You made us do this."

Beer Baron said:

I get the impression that Israel has basically decided that the only language that people in the region will recognize is overwhelming force. That restraint and partial measures will be seen as weakness. They won't hit first, but if someone hits them, they WILL hit back harder. They WILL have the final word. If collateral damage is inevitable, so be it.

HAMAS positions themselves in locations where Israel can't counterattack without collateral damage. Israel seems to have taken the position of, "So be it. You made us do this."

And I don't really have a problem with that reaction, as far as it goes.

The problem is, that's not as far as it goes.

In reply to Duke :

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to Duke :

In the early pages of this thread, a number of posters who will remain un-singled-out were calling for the utter destruction af HAMAS and any other perceived Muslim threat, more or less regardless of collateral damage, in retribution for the most recent outbreak of violence.  Much like Israel itself is calling for.

Hamas' stated reason for being is death to Israel.

Hamas EXISTS because of hardline expansionist Israel putting pressure on Palestinian settlements and territory for at least 50 years.  That is my point.

You are way, way oversimplifying the situation. You seem fixated on one variable while largely ignoring all others. I just heard this interview with Mosab Hassan Yousef, son of one of Hamas' founders. He does a good job of explaining the intent and methodology of Hamas...

Mosab Hassan Yousef Interview

bobzilla said:

I believe Duke is one of those good guys that feels violence is never the answer and that there should better option.

I am a firm believer in defensive violence.  Sometimes violence has to be the answer.

But I also believe that you damage your own credibility and righteousness when you spend 50 years provoking the other side into taking the first swing just so you can flatten them and take their lunch.

You are assuming the wants of Hamas. That fact that they are breathing provokes Hamas. Read the interview that I linked above. I shouldn't have been, but I was surprised by the role money plays in continuing hostilities. Like many things, the money is in the conflict, not the resolution. Hamas is business who's business is control and terror. 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

HAMAS didn't even form as an actual entity until the late '80s.  Twenty years after the 1967 push, and 10 years after the 1970s settlement expansions.

I never claimed that HAMAS doesn't want to extinguish Israel as a nation.  I never claimed that was justifiable.

I am claiming that HAMAS did not spontaneously appear in a vacuum.

In reply to Duke :

It's not understandable.  You might see the difference but that's just lip service and honestly pretty f'ing insulting.  So you find it understandable that they want to behead children?  Rape women?  Indiscriminately kill people?  Kidnap people?  That's totally screwed up and perhaps should cause some introspection on your part.

This is an extremely personal issue for me, my wife has family in the area, they know people who were murdered and kidnapped.  70 years ago my wife's grandparents leaped off the train to Auschwitz.  When someone's mission statement is to wipe me and my family off the planet, I have NO sympathy for them and I will react with overt violence in the face of a threat.

Nobody stands up when Jewish people are assaulted.  We're not a minority group or "different" unless we're getting denigrated.  Throughout history genocidal events have befallen us, as recently as 70 years ago.  Whatever Israel has to do to ensure the survival of it's people is totally acceptable, especially given their very rational and calculated responses to outright atrocities.

bobzilla said:

06HHR (Forum Supporter) said:

One thing I'm having trouble reconciling is how much of a surprise the attacks were.  HAMAS had to be years in the planning and training up for this.  If there was no one paying attention to whatever "red flags" were waving, because an operation of this magnitude by any one much less HAMAS doesn't just happen (of course hindsight is often 20/20), then Israeli intelligence really dropped the ball here.   I won't put on my tinfoil hat any further, but I do wonder how the signs were missed. 

Part of the problem is there had been relative peace in the area for the last 2 years. Israel and other nations had been working and providing supplies and support to the strip to aid in their growth and recovery. What was happening behind the scenes was they were plotting, training and preparing for all out war. Likely prodded by the Iranians. Iran has used Palestine and Hamas as pawns in their sick game for decades. 

And here's why I can't reconcile it.  Just because you are providing supplies and support to the people in the strip doesn't mean you stop surveilling the organization who's charter calls for the extermination of your country and people, and have backing from a sworn enemy.  I'm sure the Israeli government and defense establishment are sophisticated enough to do more than one thing at a time.  Nothing happens in a vacuum, I'm sure there were signs that HAMAS was planning an attack that were, purposely or not, ignored.  Especially considering the date of the strike, the anniversary of the Yom Kippur War..   

EDIT:   And... IBTL

In reply to docwyte :

OK, I'm done here.

While I'm gone, you and Bob please do continue misinterpreting my words and shoving them back saying something I never said.

I don't give a E36 M3 anymore.  Knock yourselves out at my expense.

aircooled said:

One aspect of these numbers that is also relevant is intent.

I cannot say with certainty the Israelis have never intended to kill civilians (it certainly happens a LOT) but they at do claim not to. 

Honesty, I'm not sure how relevant intent is for those numbers. Any action taken that will knowingly kill a person is intentional. The real difference between HAMAS and Israel in this regard is not intent to kill civilians or not, but whether those intentional civilian killings are targeting the civilians themselves. I believe Israel claims to never target civilians, but that does not mean they don't intend to kill the civilians. Israel will still hit targets knowing full well that they will also kill (many) civilians. They may try to 'reduce' the number of civilians they kill to some degree, but they don't seem to lose any sleep over doing so either. If I'm looking at murder rates, I'm not usually differentiating between 1st and 2nd degree.

bobzilla said:

Duke said:

In reply to docwyte :

OK, I'm done here.

While I'm gone, you and Bob please do continue misinterpreting my words and shoving them back saying something I never said.

I don't give a E36 M3 anymore.  Knock yourselves out at my expense.

 

I asked you a point blank question that you refused to answer. Thats on you

I think your question is not one for which a simple yes or no answer is appropriate. The existence of this discussion shows that.

In reply to mtn :

No it would clear up what he's trying to say. Is he saying that he understands why they would do that? That it could ever be acceptable? I have yet to see him say that those acts were inhuman and should never be allowed by any group.... because they shouldn't. Instead we get what-about-isms and excuses. 

It's simple. ARe you condoning the acts committed by Hamas in this attack. Is it OK to do what theyve done? That's not a hard berkeleying question to answer. Ever. If you can't answer that, then I would suggest some therapy. 

bobzilla said:

In reply to mtn :

ARe you condoning the acts committed by Hamas in this attack. Is it OK to do what theyve done? That's not a hard berkeleying question to answer. Ever. If you can't answer that, then I would suggest some therapy. 

I agree with you. But that is not the question you asked. 

mtn said:

bobzilla said:

In reply to mtn :

ARe you condoning the acts committed by Hamas in this attack. Is it OK to do what theyve done? That's not a hard berkeleying question to answer. Ever. If you can't answer that, then I would suggest some therapy. 

I agree with you. But that is not the question you asked. 

bobzilla said:

Fine, lets make this simple: Do you support the attack as justified? Yes or no.

That's pretty much exactly what was asked. 

In reply to Toyman! :

I disagree. I think that semantics are extremely important here. What does he mean by "justified?" Does he mean that you condone it? That you understand it? Which version of the facts is one using as their basis of coming to these conclusions? What if it could be justified, but you don't support the attack? 

It isn't a simple question. It is far, far too broad for the subject at hand and definitely not appropriately answered by yes or no.

I love you all but I don't think anyone is interested in who you think are the bad guys or good guys and whether or not they are justified. Please let's keep this thread on track: to watch history unfold. The facts, the events, the analysis, predictions of what's happening next, etc. 

Someone ask a ways up about how Hamas planned the attack.  There was a very revealing interview done by Russia Today, where a Hamas leader proudly talked about what they did.  I had the direct link previously (maybe in the original thread?), but this appears to be pretty complete:

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-israel-was-duped-hamas-planned-devastating-assault-2023-10-08/

The basic answer is they were pretending to be concentrating on helping the Palestinian people, which of course, if nothing else, I suspect will make Israel VERY reluctant to trust anything like that again, even if it is true.

In reply to mtn :

Sorry, how the hell can anyone understand the need to hunt down, behead and burn people alive? Rape elderly women? How? How miserable of a human would you have to be?

In reply to bobzilla, docwyte, etc. :

You are using the word 'understand' with the definition "to grasp the reasonableness of".

Duke is using the word 'understand' with the definition "to achieve a grasp of the nature, significance, or explanation of something".

The contextual difference between the two makes all the difference here, and should have been pretty obvious from multiple of his other posts, including where he explicitly stated that to understand is not to justify.

One of the biggest things holding our society back is people putting all their energy into focusing (like a blood hound) on what they think other people mean, and rather than putting that effort into to more fully understanding what they actually mean.

Of note, since it has been mentioned a few times.  There was an interview with a coroner(?) involved with investigating the killings.  One of the statements was to the effect of that they did find babies with heads separated from their bodies, but it was difficult to determine if that occurred before or after they where killed or burned.

I mean, realistically, does it really mater? But that news it out there and claims go both ways. Best case you have: yes they did shoot / burn the babies alive, but did not behead them.  Not a huge step up in my eyes.  BTW clear evidence people were bound and burned alive is apparently in that video shown to the press.

Also, I think the New York Times did an analysis and they determined there it is almost certain the hospital attack was an Islamic Jihad rocked (not that that should be a big surprise at this point).  And again, not sure it matters, since those that believe, or were told to believe otherwise will not care what they say.

In reply to bobzilla :

When you step on a bug, or burn a wasp's nest to the ground, you don't think for s second how they feel. They aren't even alive. Simply a nuance to be eradicated.

There was a time in America when blacks were considered 3/5 of a person. Women weren't equal until early LAST CENTURY.

Its easy to do awful things to people when you don't veiw them as humans.

aircooled said:

Of note, since it has been mentioned a few times.  There was an interview with a coroner(?) involved with the killings.  One of the statements was to the effect of that they did find babies with heads separated from their bodies, but it was difficult to determine if that occurred before or after they where killed or burned.

I mean, realistically, does it really mater? But that news it out there and claims go both ways. Best case you have: yes they did shoot / burn the babies alive, but did not behead them.  Not a huge step up in my eyes.  BTW clear evidence people were bound and burned alive is apparently in that video shown to the press.

Also, I think the New York Times did an analysis and they determined there it is almost certain the hospital attack was an Islamic Jihad rocked (not that that should be a big surprise at this point).  And again, not sure it matters, since those that believe, or were told to believe otherwise will not care what they say.

This is being done in an effort to distract the populace with semantics. "See, they said they beheaded them and they really just removed it after they killed them"..... and sadly its working.