Israel/Hamas War Superthread

[Dill]

(03-12-2024, 10:12 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Quote:The bolded is our primary point of disagreement. Were there no Gazan history of Israeli dispossession, massacre occupation, and containment, Hamas would neither exist nor want to destroy Israel.

I agree that this is our primary point of disagreement.
In my opinion, if a victim's response to a prepetrators actions is genocide, then the perpetrator reserves the right to defend themselves in a way that elminates those who wish to commit genocide against them, even if that means innocents will die in the process. That doesn't mean they get to have complete disregard for innocent lives. I still think there needs to be limitations in how they respond, but those limitations cannot be waiting for all innocent lives to get out of the way before attacking any position.
... My argument completely hinges on the fact that Hamas wants to commit genocide against Israel, and I was using the history of their genocidal actions to argue that point. It wasn't to argue that the history of it matters from the perspective of Israel's response but from the perspective of Hama's intentions, whicn is genocide....
The moment genocide is claimed against a group of people and that genocide is acted upon, the group of people for which the genocide is claimed against cannot be told how to handle how they respond to the genocidal acts committed against them.

Yo Matt, 2nd response here. In this post I want to address the "genocide" claim which grounds your argument against IHL restrictions on Israel in Gaza.

I don't want to talk about "genocide" without a definition. Let's go by the UN's; genocide comprises the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such.”

Note that the UN has also adopted a principle of "Responsibility to Protect" regarding genocide, which obliges all states to protect their populations against it (and the incitement of it), and which obliges UN states to work together to help prevent it when a state is unable to protect its own population.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/about-responsibility-to-protect.shtml

"Intent" has been crucial in separating the crime of genocide from other kinds of mass murder. But so far as I can tell, it has to be coupled with actual possibility of genocide. In situations where a people is genuinely in threat of being extinguished, as the Tutsi were in Rwanda, then I agree it would be unreasonable to warn them to "fight fair" in defending their very existence.

But Israel are not the Tutsi. Let's consider the balance of power.

1. Israel is the most powerful country in the ME. It has nukes, a navy, a large effective air force, an Army 170,000 strong with reserves of almost 500,000, with thousands of armored/artillery units. Hamas has about 30-40,000 fighters with mostly light weapons. Their air force would be hang gliders and thousands of dumb rockets. https://www.axios.com/2023/10/21/palestine-hamas-military-power.

Israel has held Gaza in a siege/blockade for almost two decades now, limiting their maneuver room to about 140 square miles densely populated by civilians. Israel, on the other hand, has much greater freedom of movement, striking from land, sea, and air, and with 8,630 square miles of territorial depth, where they can stage and maneuver in relative safety, and to which they can evacuate wounded.

So the first point to make is that Hamas has never had the capacity to seriously threaten genocide against Israel. That they were able to do so much damage Oct. 7 appears in retrospect a fluke due to intelligence failure and Netanyahu's focus on the West Bank.

2. What you call "the history of [Hamas] genocidal actions" apparently refers to that one day on Oct 7, when they broke out of the blockade to attack the blockaders. That was an attack which had no chance of accomplishing some goal of genocide. Perhaps you want to include other rocket attacks from the past, from within their besieged quarters.To invoke genocide, you couple that with statements to the effect they want to destroy Israel.

3. But Israel DOES have the capacity to destroy all of Gaza and to kill its inhabitants, or to displace them somewhere else and settle the land with Israelis (same for the West Bank). And it is killing and displacing Gazans by the thousands, while many of its politicians cheer the destruction and urge Palestinians to leave forever. This begins to look to many, even Israelis, like the destruction of part or whole of a people. https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2024-01-14/ty-article-opinion/.premium/if-it-isnt-a-genocide-in-gaza-then-what-is-it/0000018d-040c-dd07-a7df-cf7e8b980000

If Israel, following your reasoning, gets to ignore IHL because a group in Gaza called for Israel's destruction and then mounted an attack which had no chance of destroying Israel, then the real danger of genocide here is for Palestinians, not Israelis, given that so many Israelis want them gone as a people.

So my final point on this post is really a question--given the UN principle of "Responsibility to Protect," whom should the international community be addressing if it wants to prevent genocide? Were it following your rationale, it would have a duty to help Israel (not in danger of genocide) to wipe out Hamas, and maybe a large portion of innocent Gazans--including those tens of thousands who will die in the future of starvation and disease. Were it following mine, the duty to protect would dictate reining in the IDF toute suite.

Next post I want discuss whether religion can separate the conflict from its history.

[Arturo Bandini]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/19/jared-kushner-gaza-waterfront-property-israel-negev

[Dill]

(03-19-2024, 08:25 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/19/jared-kushner-gaza-waterfront-property-israel-negev

Gaza’s waterfront property could be very valuable … if people would focus on building up livelihoods,” Kushner told his interviewer, Harvard’s Middle East Initiative faculty chair, Prof Tarek Masoud. Kushner also lamented “all the money” that had gone into the territory’s tunnel network and munitions instead of education and innovation.

“It’s a little bit of an unfortunate situation there, but from Israel’s perspective I would do my best to move the people out and then clean it up,” Kushner said. “But I don’t think that Israel has stated that they don’t want the people to move back there afterwards.”

Masoud replied that there was “a lot to talk about there”.

Kushner also said he thinks Israel should move civilians from Gaza to the Negev desert in southern Israel.

He said that if he were in charge of Israel his number one priority would be getting civilians out of the southern city of Rafah, and that “with diplomacy” it could be possible to get them into Egypt.

“But in addition to that, I would just bulldoze something in the Negev, I would try to move people in there,” he said. “I think that’s a better option, so you can go in and finish the job.”

He reiterated the point a little later, saying: “I do think right now opening up the Negev, creating a secure area there, moving the civilians out, and then going in and finishing the job would be the right move.”

The suggestion drew a startled response from Masoud. “Is that something that they’re talking about in Israel?” Masoud asked. “I mean, that’s the first I’ve really heard of somebody, aside from President Sisi [Egypt’s leader], suggesting that Gazans trying to flee the fighting could take refuge in the Negev. Are people in Israel seriously talking about that possibility?”

“I don’t know,” Kushner replied, shrugging his shoulders....

Asked by Masoud about fears on the part of Arabs in the region that the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, would not allow Palestinians who flee Gaza to return, Kushner paused and then said: “Maybe.”
He went on to say: “I am not sure there is much left of Gaza at this point. If you think about even the construct, Gaza was not really a historical precedent [sic]. It was the result of a war. You had tribes in different places and then Gaza became a thing. Egypt used to run it and then over time different governments came in.”

Responding to a question about whether the Palestinians should have their own state, Kushner described the proposal as “a super bad idea” that “would essentially be rewarding an act of terror”.

[Dill]

(03-12-2024, 10:12 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: First, you said that I didn't offer a clear argument for why history shouldn't matter. I feel as though I have though. My clear argument for why it shouldn't matter is Hamas's genocidal intentions. The moment genocide is claimed against a group of people and that genocide is acted upon, the group of people for which the genocide is claimed against cannot be told how to handle how they respond to the genocidal acts committed against them. 

Now to clarify again, I mean they get to respond how they want to respond within a certian degree of reason. I don't think they just get to launch nukes over there and anniihlate everyone. I think limits should be applied to their response that has some regard for innocent lives. But that does not mean indefinite ceasefires.

Ok I agree you ARE offering an argument as to why history shouldn't matter. So I am disagreeing with your reasons here.

And "some regard for innocent lives"--no nukes, is still a bit fuzzy. But you are definitely saying less regard for innocent life than
IHL allows. Right? And that's because Hamas said "genocide." I've already responded to that. I'll discussion the "religion" problem now

(03-12-2024, 10:12 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Secondly, I take issue with you trying to argue from a historical perspective that if Israel didn't limit 1)the every day lives of the people living in Gaza, then Hamas wouldn't attempt genocide against Israel. It paints Hamas as some "freedom fighter" group when they're not. 2)

The truth is Hamas doesn't want Israel to exist from a religious perspective. The history of Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip is secondary to Hamas's primary objective of destroying Israel based on the point that the land Israel occupies is "Holy land". Therefore, the history ultimately doesn't matter. 3)If Israel ended their blockade and let transportation flow freely and gave everyone food and water and electricity and gas, it wouldn't matter because it still doesn't resolve the primary issue, which is Israel is occupying the "holy land" of Palestine.

1. "Limit" rather understates the situation of dispossession, occupation, siege and now utter destruction.

2. If you start with your conclusion and then dismiss controverting evidence, that's just motivated reasoning.
If you want to sideline the history, then explain why dispossession and occupation are not sufficient to motivate Palestinians to resist occupation.
I understand why it is in the interest of the current Israeli government to separate resistance TO occupation FROM the occupation. It's because most
everyone understands and sympathizes with resistance to oppression. 

3. If I understand you, you are saying that religion fully explains the behavior of Hamas. They don't hate Israel because it has driven them from their homes and besieged them in Gaza, where it can kill Palestinians with impunity.  They hate them because they have taken their "Holy Land."

E.g., to offer a counter-factual thought experiment, if Israel had not driven Palestinians off their land in '48, but incorporated them into their new state as citizens, there would still be a Hamas type organization wanting to destroy Israel and kill Jews. The occupation and bombing of civilians in Gaza for years and all that plays no role, or only a "secondary" one, in their desire to destroy the state doing that to them. If you don't think that is the case, then I don't see how you can disregard history.

Seems clear--no Israeli dispossession/occupation=no Hamas. Given that, dispossession cannot be separated from Hamas and its motivations. I see Hamas on the analogy to Hezbollah. They emerge AFTER and Israeli occupation and then express their resistance in religious terms. Their opposition to Israel becomes expressed in religious terms, but that doesn't make religion the CAUSE. A change in power relations and opportunities and the so-called religious motivation will wither.

I agree that Israel ending the siege and providing food and water for the people it is now starving would not end the matter. Israel would still be in control of Gaza and the land from which they expelled Palestinians. It's not clear at all though, that if the Israelis offered some serious path to a two-state solution that wouldn't end the matter. Hamas has already signaled it would be receptive to that. You know there is a more recent statement of Hamas principles, right, one which would "consider" a Palestinian state within the ’67 boundaries? https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/hamas-2017.pdf

[Dill]

(03-16-2024, 12:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:I have "zero issue" with labeling you as "GOP supporting," given your extensive and repeated support for GOP policies and Trump SCOTUS choices and constant attacks on something you call "the left." I'd call that behavior "aligning" with the GOP or "Right wing apologism."


Resolutely attacking "the Left" and defending right wing politics while disavowing that you are right winger doesn't make you a Republican or conservative any more than it makes you some kind of impartial, centrist "independent" who avoids extremes.

Thank you.  You literally just stated why my calling you an apologist for Hamas is both accurate, by your own standards, and allowable.

By my "own standards," criticizing Dem policy on Israel would not make someone thereby a supporter of Republicans/MAGA.

Just as criticizing Sherman's march on Atlanta would not make someone a supporter of the Confederacy.

Similarly, criticizing Israel's human rights violations doesn't make me a "Hamas supporter." It makes me a supporter of Human Rights. 

So I did not "just literally state" that your calling me a "Hamas apologist" was "both accurate and allowable." 

You've replaced my definition of "support" with yours to get a conclusion you wanted. 

[Dill]

(03-16-2024, 12:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: the oversimplification here--I just can't let it pass.  You've equated Hamas to the Soviet Union--both "evil."[/size][/color]
But we allied with the Soviet Union during WWII. I.e., we chose to "align" with them, believing we knew their "exact intentions."[/size][/color]

Ahh, someone has never heard f the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  Let's also ignore the sentiment, most exemplified by Patton, that the Soviets should have been next after Germany fell.

Quote:Few believe that made the US "Communist apologists/supporters."  

Because they weren't.

Quote:But that whole analogy is out of kilter because no one in this forum has "allied/joined" with or "defended" Hamas "knowing their intentions." 

You mean no one except you.

They weren't?  Then it's YOUR analogy which falls apart here. The question was whether "allying" with someone was an endorsement of their goals.
In the US Soviet case, Patton seemed to think not. 

And analogy itself is far off point since no one here is "allied" with Hamas. That's something you keep asserting without evidence.

(03-16-2024, 12:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:But that whole analogy is out of kilter because no one in this forum has "allied/joined" with or "defended" Hamas "knowing their intentions." 

You mean no one except you.

The US formally "allied/joined" with the Soviet Union and "knowing their intentions," called them "allies" in public speeches and documents.

I, on the other hand, have not called Hamas an "ally" but rather an impediment to a two-state solution, which I said depended
on their destruction.

If you are asked to produce an example of me calling Hamas and "ally" or "joining" with them, you cannot.

Your whole claim just rests on my acknowledgement of IDF war crimes and disregard of my statements critical of Hamas.

[Dill]

(03-16-2024, 11:57 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It is exactly as I have said--you begin with the assumption that 1) Israelis/the IDF don't lie or commit war crimes,
and 2) that's ALL Hamas does.  And your posts demand TRUST of IDF accounts of the war and DISTRUST of independent observers,
whose reporting is simply dismissed in advance as "Hamas propaganda." (E.g., see your response to Dino's post # 166.)

Yes, I give the IDF the benefit of the doubt and I do not give Hamas the benefit of the doubt.  That's because one is a terrorist organization that records itself gleefully slaughtering and raping civilians and then kidnapping infants and toddlers.  Yes, I will do that and I will continue to do that.

Nope, it's the actual excuse making that gets labeled supporting terrorism.  GM, for all his faults, does not engage in the same tactics as you.  You richly deserve the label, hence my using it.

It's not about giving one side "the benefit of the doubt." It's about examining whatever reports come out of a war zone by gathering and comparing other and all evidence. It means not calling evidence confirmed by multiple journalists and other observers "anecdotal" when it doesn't favor propaganda goals.

You aren't just giving one side "the benefit of the doubt" when you cruelly dismiss reports of massive Palestinian casualties as Hamas propaganda.

"Actual excuse making" still just turns out to be acknowledging IDF war crimes. You are demanding a double standard in reporting and in forum discussion.

Those who don't toe the line on the double standard are "apologists" and "the proof is everywhere," like in the links below. 

(03-16-2024, 11:57 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You saying this in a thread in which anyone can read you doing exactly that is awesome.  Truly.

When defining equation I'll stick with the dictionary definition.  Also, by accurate reporting do you mean the time the IDF bombed a hospital?  That kind of accurate reporting?

I didn't rush to denounce CNN when its reporting on 40 babies beheaded by Hamas, as reported by the IDF, 
https://www.businessinsider.com/idf-says-hamas-decapitated-babies-in-israel-2023-10?r=US&IR=T
was undermined. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/unverified-allegations-beheaded-babies-israel-hamas-war-inflame-social-rcna119902
https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/nov/21/israel-hamas-war-what-we-know-about-beheaded-babie/

And so far I have refrained from commenting on other IDF efforts to strain evidence beyond what it can support.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/information-missteps-led-questions-israels-credibility-rcna125723.

You, on the other hand, rushed to denounce the NYT for mis-reporting a hospital bombing, an error it immediately corrected.
And you rushed to tack on to that error all manner of inflated consequences. That error is apparently still your gold standard of 
one-sided judgment, even as  continued reporting forms a more complete picture of hospital attacks, which are neither "errors" nor "anecdotal."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/21/al-shifa-hospital-gaza-hamas-israel/
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2024/01/middleeast/gaza-hospitals-destruction-investigation-intl-cmd/
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/14/gaza-unlawful-israeli-hospital-strikes-worsen-health-crisis

The NYT article about Hamas rape, "Screams without Words" (12/31/23), has caused an internal rift in the NYT over reporting standards, including
the selection of reporters and too easy acceptance of IDF claims. That hasn't caught your interest though.
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/06/1236130609/new-york-times-hamas-attacks-israel-palestine

So to continue with my previous point about comparing/vetting evidence.  The news reading public is bound to get conflicting reports about events in a war zone. The point is not to endorse every first report, or second, and then run with it if it suits our agenda. People should be stepping back and attempting to get the most complete picture possible by vetting multiple sources.

If you are trying to hinder that effort, tarring those who insist on accuracy as "Hamas supporters,"
then you are not giving the IDF the "benefit of the doubt," you are actively aiding it in a propaganda war.

[Arturo Bandini]

(03-19-2024, 10:58 PM)Dill Wrote:
Gaza’s waterfront property could be very valuable … if people would focus on building up livelihoods,” Kushner told his interviewer, Harvard’s Middle East Initiative faculty chair, Prof Tarek Masoud. Kushner also lamented “all the money” that had gone into the territory’s tunnel network and munitions instead of education and innovation.

“It’s a little bit of an unfortunate situation there, but from Israel’s perspective I would do my best to move the people out and then clean it up,” Kushner said. “But I don’t think that Israel has stated that they don’t want the people to move back there afterwards.”

Masoud replied that there was “a lot to talk about there”.

Kushner also said he thinks Israel should move civilians from Gaza to the Negev desert in southern Israel.

He said that if he were in charge of Israel his number one priority would be getting civilians out of the southern city of Rafah, and that “with diplomacy” it could be possible to get them into Egypt.

“But in addition to that, I would just bulldoze something in the Negev, I would try to move people in there,” he said. “I think that’s a better option, so you can go in and finish the job.”

He reiterated the point a little later, saying: “I do think right now opening up the Negev, creating a secure area there, moving the civilians out, and then going in and finishing the job would be the right move.”

The suggestion drew a startled response from Masoud. “Is that something that they’re talking about in Israel?” Masoud asked. “I mean, that’s the first I’ve really heard of somebody, aside from President Sisi [Egypt’s leader], suggesting that Gazans trying to flee the fighting could take refuge in the Negev. Are people in Israel seriously talking about that possibility?”

“I don’t know,” Kushner replied, shrugging his shoulders....

Asked by Masoud about fears on the part of Arabs in the region that the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, would not allow Palestinians who flee Gaza to return, Kushner paused and then said: “Maybe.”
He went on to say: “I am not sure there is much left of Gaza at this point. If you think about even the construct, Gaza was not really a historical precedent [sic]. It was the result of a war. You had tribes in different places and then Gaza became a thing. Egypt used to run it and then over time different governments came in.”

Responding to a question about whether the Palestinians should have their own state, Kushner described the proposal as “a super bad idea” that “would essentially be rewarding an act of terror”.

That's why we are losers. Where people see civilians being killed by terrorists or Israel army, tears, blood, starvation ... Some people see money opportunities in that chaos. 

Already planning to sell condos on a land they don't own and move these people out whatever the destination is. Yes, desert is good, you can't sell condos in a desert.


Empathy is for losers. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-16-2024, 12:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill, please do me the courtesy of directly answering the following questions as I believe a true answer from you will be illuminating.

1.  Does the state of Israel have a right to exist in any form as it has since the end of WW2?

2.  Do you, personally, believe Hamas is a terrorist organization?

3.  Do you think the IDF commits atrocities on par with those of Hamas and at the same, or greater, frequency.

I always do you the courtesy of giving direct answers, kindly return the favor.  And with that I bid you a nice weekend.  Lookin forward to your response, it'll be interesting I'm sure.

Still waiting on some honest, direct answers to the above questions, Dill.  And before you make the dishonest claim you already have, you haven't.  I know it, and you know it.  So kindly be an adult and provide direct answers.  I think they will provide much needed context to your positions on this issue.  My thanks in advance.

[Dill]

(03-16-2024, 12:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill, please do me the courtesy of directly answering the following questions as I believe a true answer from you will be illuminating.

1.  Does the state of Israel have a right to exist in any form as it has since the end of WW2?

2.  Do you, personally, believe Hamas is a terrorist organization?

3.  Do you think the IDF commits atrocities on par with those of Hamas and at the same, or greater, frequency.

I always do you the courtesy of giving direct answers, kindly return the favor.  And with that I bid you a nice weekend.  Lookin forward to your response, it'll be interesting I'm sure.

LOL I remember when you instructed Fred to "debate like an adult" on the "LE Leaks" thread. He demonstrated the double standard immediately (#280). Adults don't resort to constant name-calling in place of rational argument and evidence.

You do me the "courtesy" of calling me a racist, antisemitic, Hamas supporter, while dodging my questions about your criteria for defining "terrorist supporters." That's not the behavior of someone looking for "an honest answer."

1. Israel has a right to exist as part of a two-state or one-state solution to the Palestinian problem. It doesn't have right to exist as an ethnic state which occupies territory gained in war with intent to cleanse and annex.

2. To repeat: I'll state "unequivocally" that Hamas meets the U.S./EU definition of a terrorist organization. But because the U.S. doesn't apply the label consistently to all who merit it, I regard its application as generally political rather than descriptive. The job of propagandists is to get people to accept and apply such labels without thinking; I won't go along. That means nothing has changed in the last four days; I still don't use the term "terrorist" as a descriptor. 

3. Not sure how you are defining "atrocities." Bad stuff Arabs do? If you mean war crimes and violations of IHL, then I'd say the record shows the IDF does so with greater frequency, with much greater destruction and loss of life. But when I've mentioned their sordid record in the past you've simply denied/ignored the facts or introduced a time limit. Do you mean just since last year or what? 

Now you can do me the courtesy of answering the following questions. 

1. Do Palestinians have the same human rights as Israelis, both as individuals and as a people? 

2. If your answer to 1 was "yes," then has the state of Israel violated those rights? This is not a poll, explain why not if you think not. 

3. And if the answer to 1 was "yes," do Palestinians have a right to self defense? Again, if not, explain why not. Flippancy ("because they don't) is a dodge.

4. I have said that Hamas needs to be destroyed if a two-state solution is going to work. Do you consider that statement "support for Hamas"?
Again, show your work. What is your standard for determining whether a statement about the Gaza war supports Hamas or not?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-20-2024, 05:23 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL I remember when you instructed Fred to "debate like an adult" on the "LE Leaks" thread. He demonstrated the double standard immediately (#280). Adults don't resort to constant name-calling in place of rational argument and evidence.

LOL, thank you for the editorial.

Quote:You do me the "courtesy" of calling me a racist, antisemitic, Hamas supporter, while dodging my questions about your criteria for defining "terrorist supporters." That's not the behavior of someone looking for "an honest answer."

Well, I do find you to be antisemitic, but I do not automatically equate criticism of Israel to antisemitism.  I have never dodged your questions on my criteria, I have detailed them quite clearly in this very thread.  Now, onto the actual questions.

Quote:1. Israel has a right to exist as part of a two-state or one-state solution to the Palestinian problem. It doesn't have right to exist as an ethnic state which occupies territory gained in war with intent to cleanse and annex.

As Israel has a right to self defense, as you would clearly agree given your future question, I must counter that any territory lost by Arab nations during their wars of aggression with Israel are their fault, not Israel's.  I have stated, numerous times, that it would have been better for Israel not to annex territory they conquered in defensive wars.  But I place the blame for those action more squarely on the aggressors in those conflicts.  More problematically, Israel was created as an ethnic state for the Jewish people after the Holocaust.  To deny it's right to exist as an ethnic state is to deny its right to exist.  So, in summation, you do not think Israel should be able to exist in any form it has since the end of WW2.  Noted.

Quote:2. To repeat: I'll state "unequivocally" that Hamas meets the U.S./EU definition of a terrorist organization. But because the U.S. doesn't apply the label consistently to all who merit it, I regard its application as generally political rather than descriptive. The job of propagandists is to get people to accept and apply such labels without thinking; I won't go along. That means nothing has changed in the last four days; I still don't use the term "terrorist" as a descriptor. 

Copy that.  So Al Qaeda is not a terrorist organization, nor are any of the 9/11 hijackers terrorists in your eyes.  Again, noted.

Quote:3. Not sure how you are defining "atrocities." Bad stuff Arabs do? If you mean war crimes and violations of IHL, then I'd say the record shows the IDF does so with greater frequency, with much greater destruction and loss of life. But when I've mentioned their sordid record in the past you've simply denied/ignored the facts or introduced a time limit. Do you mean just since last year or what? 

You could stick to the actual dictionary definition of the word atrocity, or continue with your hyperbole.  So, you do think the IDF is a worse actor than Hamas.  Thank you, and again, noted.

Quote:Now you can do me the courtesy of answering the following questions. 

Should I go straight to answering them or throw in a lot of silly little jabs first?

Quote:1. Do Palestinians have the same human rights as Israelis, both as individuals and as a people? 

All humans beings do, so yes.

Quote:2. If your answer to 1 was "yes," then has the state of Israel violated those rights? This is not a poll, explain why not if you think not. 

Yes, but not to the extent or in the manner that you believe.  Again, I consistently hold the Arab aggressor nations more at fault for the diaspora of the Palestinian people.  Nor can I fully condemn Israel's refusal to let people hostile to their existence within the borders.  But, ultimately the answer is yes.  I would say most especially in the West Bank.

Quote:3. And if the answer to 1 was "yes," do Palestinians have a right to self defense? Again, if not, explain why not. Flippancy ("because they don't) is a dodge.

Thank you for the pedantry.  Yes, but, again, not in the manner in which your clearly believe.  In the exact same way I do not think the Native Americans have the right to strike out at the United States in attempts to reclaim what they have lost.  Nor do I think that indiscriminately lobbing unguided rockets (a redundant, but necessary descriptor) into Israel is self defense, nor is invading Israel and engaging in wanton slaughter and rape of civilians, and the kidnapping of infants and toddlers self defense.  Most especially when it is done with such evident glee.

Quote:4. I have said that Hamas needs to be destroyed if a two-state solution is going to work. Do you consider that statement "support for Hamas"?
Again, show your work. What is your standard for determining whether a statement about the Gaza war supports Hamas or not?

Actually, I really haven't, as I do not think a two state solution will ever work.  I do think Hamas needs to be destroyed, and it would be simple to do so if Iran and other nations such as Qatar stopped actively funding/assisting them.  But the two state solution is a non-starter at the end of the day.  Neither party really wants it and the respective religious hardliners will never allow it.  Could there be peace?  Yes, and I think it was inching in that direction with several Arab nations moving towards normalizing relations with Israel.  Which is exactly what Iran and their terrorist lackeys in Hamas wanted to stop when they invaded Israel on 10/07/23.  They got a lot of what they wanted since, and they're relying on people like you in the West to get them the rest of their wish list.  And they are willing to sacrifice every single civilian in Gaza to achieve that goal.  Which is why they are definitively, and demonstrably, worse than Israel in every regard and no equation of substance can reasonably be drawn.  Clear enough for you?

[GMDino]

Just to add to this enlightening back and forth:

Netanyahu is also "actively funding/assisting" Hamas which is why is "strategy" and end game is being questioned, and why so many people around the world are concerned about the innocent people being killed in the name of "self-defense".


Also I don't think calling another board member antisemitic follows the new rules no matter how coached the phrasing is.  Nor the implication that the other poster is pro-terrorist.

[Dill]

(03-21-2024, 08:40 AM)GMDino Wrote: Just to add to this enlightening back and forth:

Netanyahu is also "actively funding/assisting" Hamas which is why is "strategy" and end game is being questioned, and why so many people around the world are concerned about the innocent people being killed in the name of "self-defense".

Also I don't think calling another board member antisemitic follows the new rules no matter how coached the phrasing is.  Nor the implication that the other poster is pro-terrorist.

I don't think calling another poster "antisemitic" followed the old rules either.

In this case it comes from a someone who regularly characterizes posters who disagree with him as aligning with 
whatever foreign adversary is under discussion. You, yourself, have carried some water for China, have you not? 
Now the bolded suggests that your concern for the loss of innocent lives aligns you with "terrorism" as well, Dino.

I actually would not object to being called "antisemitic" if some valid ground could be shown, 
not continual repetition that I "clearly" am. Somehow. And claims the proof is everywhere.

So far it just follows from criticism of Israeli violations of IHL; as such
it's just an effort to stop the criticism without acknowledging/refuting the fact of violation. 

That's why the criticism was merely "noted" in his last post, rather than refuted. It's the fact of the criticism that counts, not its validity.

So what do you make of Netanyahu's objection to foreign interference in Israeli politics?  
Seems he's forgotten a certain visit to Washington while Obama was president.

[GMDino]

(03-21-2024, 09:52 AM)Dill Wrote: I don't think calling another poster "antisemitic" followed the old rules either.

In this case it comes from a someone who regularly characterizes posters who disagree with him as aligning with foreign adversaries
if they disagree with him. You, yourself, have carried some water for China, have you not? 
Now the bolded suggests that your concern for the loss of innocent lives aligns you with "terrorism" as well, Dino.

I actually would not object to being called "antisemitic" if some valid ground could be shown, 
not continual repetition that I "clearly" am. Somehow. And claims the proof is everywhere.

So far it just follows from criticism of Israeli violations of IHL; as such
it's just an effort to stop the criticism without acknowledging/refuting the fact of violation. 

That's why the criticism was merely "noted" in his last post, rather than refuted. It's the fact of the criticism that counts, not its validity.

So what do you make of Netanyahu's objection to foreign interference in Israeli politics?  
Seems he's forgotten a certain visit to Washington while Obama was president.

I heard he met with Congressional republicans, but not Democrats. Schumer declined an offer.

Same republicans who voted against aid for Israel.

But he's upset that someone suggested he has no plan other than war.

[Dill]

(03-21-2024, 09:57 AM)GMDino Wrote: I heard he met with Congressional republicans, but not Democrats.  Schumer declined an offer.

Same republicans who voted against aid for Israel.

But he's upset that someone suggested he has no plan other than war.

In the Obama era, Schumer was, I think, the only Dem who listened to Netanuahu's address to the Senate.

He has until now been one of the strongest, "no-strings-attached" supporters of Israel and Netanyahu.

But he balks at the wholesale destruction of Gaza and the impending attack on all the citizens ordered to
gather in Rafa, and Trump immediately calls him an "Israel hater." And a self-hating Jew. 

I think that works against Trump in the long run, but there is a market for that style of denunciation via label,
at least in his own base. 

As I said on another thread, it is interesting how the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians maps onto
our own political divisions. The propaganda/press war, at the local and global level, is the most complicated
I have ever seen.

[GMDino]

(03-21-2024, 12:25 PM)Dill Wrote: In the Obama era, Schumer was, I think, the only Dem who listened to Netanuahu's address to the Senate.

He has until now been one of the strongest, "no-strings-attached" supporters of Israel and Netanyahu.

But he balks at the wholesale destruction of Gaza and the impending attack on all the citizens ordered to
gather in Rafa, and Trump immediately calls him an "Israel hater." And a self-hating Jew. 

I think that works against Trump in the long run, but there is a market for that style of denunciation via label,
at least in his own base. 

As I said on another thread, it is interesting how the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians maps onto
our own political divisions. The propaganda/press war, at the local and global level, is the most complicated
I have ever seen.

Schumer basically said he didn't want him playing politics and one side against the other.

Netanyahu, from what I have read about him, is not only dirty but pretty bad.  He has no plan beyond "destroy Hamas" and the US should realize what those open ended wars are like when there is zero exit strategy.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-21-2024, 09:52 AM)Dill Wrote: That's why the criticism was merely "noted" in his last post, rather than refuted. It's the fact of the criticism that counts, not its validity.

What is there to refute in your answers?  You stated your position, I indicated I understood your positions.  I must have been accurate as you didn't post a three page rebuttal about how I got your positions wrong.  I again thank you for making your positions on this matter clear for all to see.

[Dill]

(03-21-2024, 05:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What is there to refute in your answers?  You stated your position, I indicated I understood your positions.  I must have been accurate as you didn't post a three page rebuttal about how I got your positions wrong.  I again thank you for making your positions on this matter clear for all to see.

First thing that comes to mind is my assertion about the frequency and extent that Israel violates IHL.

But you don't refute it. Just "note" it.  Because you are not interested in whether the assertion is true or not. 

Also, I often put together posts over time. If they respond to polemics of your "shoot the messenger" type,

then I usually let them sit overnight and review them before posting. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-21-2024, 12:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: Schumer basically said he didn't want him playing politics and one side against the other.

Netanyahu, from what I have read about him, is not only dirty but pretty bad.  He has no plan beyond "destroy Hamas" and the US should realize what those open ended wars are like when there is zero exit strategy.

How exactly do you deal with someone that is not interested in peace but only wants your head on a platter?

Hamas only wants peace when their back is against the wall and they are in danger of being wiped out. History has shown us that already so I'm all for just finishing them. 
You can try to keep the civilian casualties low, but it's not gonna happen with the way Hamas fights back

[GMDino]

(03-22-2024, 08:58 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: How exactly do you deal with someone that is not interested in peace but only wants your head on a platter?

Hamas only wants peace when their back is against the wall and they are in danger of being wiped out. History has shown us that already so I'm all for just finishing them. 
You can try to keep the civilian casualties low, but it's not gonna happen with the way Hamas fights back

Israel will never "wipe out" Hamas...or any of their enemies.  Just like we didn't "finish" ISIS.  

Netanyahu, who helped keep Hamas in power, is using this as a (new) excuse to wipe out as much of the strip as he possibly can while crying crocodile tears.

No, Hamas won't suddenly stop attacking anymore than white nationalists won't stop doing it here.  But the way this self-defense has morphed into "well, we had to kill them because there might be Hamas in there somewhere" is wearing our all over the world.