Death tolls mysteriously rise in Gaza

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

hanselthecaretaker:
Six million Jews were gassed and burned by the Nazis, and Hitler was the most evil person to have lived. That?s the general conception people have, at least in the West.

That's not particularly untrue though.

My problem with the number is that it overlooks the other few million that weren't Jewish that also were killed the same way. You don't hear so much about LGBT people or the disabled or Roma or the homeless.

It also doesn't take into account, say, civilian casualties in the Siege of Leningrad, which were totally intentional.

Seanchaidh:

Thaluikhain:
It's the US's only ally in the area

It is? What constitutes "in the area"?

Ok, yeah, now that I think of it, it does require a very specific definition of "in the area" for that to be true.

Catnip1024:

hanselthecaretaker:
I have to wonder sometimes how much protection and billions in aid each year we?d be giving Israel if the Holocaust never happened. Norman Finkelstein even thinks there?s an industry behind it.

Another peculiarity is, while everyone grew up learning about the six million number, what about how long and often it?s been tossed around.

I know stuff like that is bordering on sacrilege, but really if truth is the new hate speech, then where would that leave us.

And now we've reached the inevitable conclusion of this thread - Holocaust conspiracy theories.

So you're just going to ignore what everyone else posted in reply to you to focus on a single comment that you can deflect with?

Avnger:
So you're just going to ignore what everyone else posted in reply to you to focus on a single comment that you can deflect with?

Yes. I cba with round the houses arguments where nobody is willing to shift position and nobody will get anywhere.

So you're just going to ignore the fact that we are edging towards saying "well, the Holocaust wasn't that bad"?

Hans, are we the baddies?

Catnip1024:

Avnger:
So you're just going to ignore what everyone else posted in reply to you to focus on a single comment that you can deflect with?

Yes. I cba with round the houses arguments where nobody is willing to shift position and nobody will get anywhere.

So you're just going to ignore the fact that we are edging towards saying "well, the Holocaust wasn't that bad"?

Hans, are we the baddies?

Honestly, I don't think the Holocaust was bad[1] enough to justify genociding Palestinians.

[1] talk about leaving myself open to an out of context quote!

Catnip1024:
So you're just going to ignore the fact that we are edging towards saying "well, the Holocaust wasn't that bad"?

So far, you're the only one who's said a nation-state (Israel) causing mass casualties (thousands of injuries on top of the confirmed deaths) to a single ethnic group (palestinians) is no big deal ("it'll heal")...

edit:

I'm also going to point you to a couple of posts from a few months back that seem rather interesting considering your take on the Israeli attacks on civilians:

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
'Higher Standards' are why Nazis and the KKK werent stamped out of this world decades ago.

Not pre-emptive. WW2 already happened. Its called finishing the job.

Or, "let's sink to their level".

You know what sinking to the oppositions level is? It is a validation of their actions. It legitimises them.

NemotheElvenPanda:
Snip

Well, due process and rule of law applies when dealing with actual terrorists, I don't see why it shouldn't apply when dealing with this mob. That's the point of rule of law.

Huh. This really seems like an indictment of the kind of violence Israel's military used against unarmed civilians. Hell, you even said "dealing with actual terrorists" which Hamas could certainly fall into. People were being gunned down for doing nothing more than protesting; they weren't mounting armed assaults on the border wall. How is that "rule of law?"

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
snip

cjspyres:
snip

Higher standards is what separates decent people from the likes of your Nazis and your violent protesters.

If you are using a hypothetical threat of violence to justify pre-emptive violence, you are no better. If you are saying "I think they are going to say something unacceptable" to stop people speaking entirely, you are no better.

There's nothing wrong with having standards that are above political affiliation.

This one is fun too. I especially like "If you are using a hypothetical threat of violence to justify pre-emptive violence, you are no better." Were any Israelis injured during the demonstrations? How many of the 50+ killed and thousands injured were proven to be engaged in or about to immediately engage in violence before they were shot by IDF soldiers?

=================================

I try really hard not to make assumptions, but, mate, you've made it explicitly clear that you don't care when Palestinians (brown and largely Muslim) people are attacked yet get very upset when the idea of even potentially treating American Nazis (white and largely Christian) as anything less than model citizens. How do you expect us to see this as anything other than Islamophobia, racism, and/or both?

Catnip1024:

Hans, are we the baddies?

Yes, Hans, you are the bad guy. You think it is okay to injure someone, seemingly to any degree whatsoever, as long as you don't accidentally go a little bit too far and kill them. They will, after all, heal. (I don't know where you get this idea that being dead or being A-OK is a black or white situation, because I'm pretty sure even a real nugget of a child would understand that isn't the case.)

Anyway, that does kind of make you look like the bad guy. That you're unwilling to 'shift position' or even attempt to clarify that fairly bleak opinion sort of makes you a worse bad guy. Or maybe one that says things without thinking. It could be that.

Seanchaidh:

Honestly, I don't think the Holocaust was bad

Saved and sent to the Murdoch press for the next socialist smear headline, thanks!

hanselthecaretaker:

Six million Jews were gassed and burned by the Nazis, and Hitler was the most evil person to have lived. That?s the general conception people have, at least in the West. If that's all there was to it, then fine, but things like science, logic and reason would probably have more to say, if allowed to do so.

Okay then, what's unscientific, illogical and unreasonable about the Nazis killing ~6 million Jews? Killing in the broadest sense, of course - i.e. including deaths from starvation and disease in concentration camps.

Agema:

hanselthecaretaker:

Six million Jews were gassed and burned by the Nazis, and Hitler was the most evil person to have lived. That?s the general conception people have, at least in the West. If that's all there was to it, then fine, but things like science, logic and reason would probably have more to say, if allowed to do so.

Okay then, what's unscientific, illogical and unreasonable about the Nazis killing ~6 million Jews? Killing in the broadest sense, of course - i.e. including deaths from starvation and disease in concentration camps.

Look, we've got to be really clear on the difference between choosing the forced labor and exterminate purge options in Stellaris. It's important (somehow).

Majestic Manatee:

Seanchaidh:

Honestly, I don't think the Holocaust was bad

Saved and sent to the Murdoch press for the next socialist smear headline, thanks!

Well done.

Seanchaidh:

Look, we've got to be really clear on the difference between choosing the forced labor and exterminate purge options in Stellaris. It's important (somehow).

You'd be amazed how many Holocaust deniers try to argue the Jews just happened to accidentally die in difficult wartime conditions, as if the lack of food, adequate accommodation, sanitation and medical provision they had was somehow not the fault or intent of the Nazis.

hanselthecaretaker:

It wouldn?t be a conspiracy if the details behind it were concrete in the first place. It was one of the most major events in modern human history. When has any other major event in modern human history been so taboo to debate or at least technically examine that people are typically ostracized or in some cases locked up and even killed for doing so.

What we were taught in school:

Six million Jews were gassed and burned by the Nazis, and Hitler was the most evil person to have lived. That?s the general conception people have, at least in the West. If that?s all there was to it, then fine, but things like science, logic and reason would probably have more to say, if allowed to do so.

You act as if "science, logic and reason" hasn't already been saying a whole lot on this topic. The fact that we even know that six million Jewish people and another 6 million "undesirables" (among them 3 million Soviet prisoners of war, GLBT-people, people with cognitive impairment, Roma, slavs and people of several religious denominations) were killed in the systematic genocide known as the Holocaust is because the Holocaust has been extensively studied by researchers of many, many academic fields.

Let's cut the "just asking questions" (or "just making implications" in this case): There are thousands upon thousands of eye witness accounts to the Holocaust, there are hundreds of testimonies from people involved in the Holocaust, from Herman Goering himself down to camp guards and train drivers that ferried people to the camps. There are archives full of original Nazi documentation about the Holocaust and similar archives from both the US, UK and Red Army when they liberated the camps. Shit, the reason there are original Nazi documentation about the "Final Solution" is because they were actually proud of it and couldn't conceive of why anyone would condemn them for it. World War 2 is an incredibly well-researched part of history and even the war itself pales next to the extreme amount of research that has gone into the Holocaust.

So let me be clear, as a mod here: Discussing the the Holocaust is fine, it is an important historical event and can be discussed as such. But any attempt at denying, downplaying or legitimizing it is entirely unacceptable and will be met with swift mod action.

Gethsemani:

Let's cut the "just asking questions" (or "just making implications" in this case): There are thousands upon thousands of eye witness accounts to the Holocaust, there are hundreds of testimonies from people involved in the Holocaust, from Herman Goering himself down to camp guards and train drivers that ferried people to the camps. There are archives full of original Nazi documentation about the Holocaust and similar archives from both the US, UK and Red Army when they liberated the camps. Shit, the reason there are original Nazi documentation about the "Final Solution" is because they were actually proud of it and couldn't conceive of why anyone would condemn them for it. World War 2 is an incredibly well-researched part of history and even the war itself pales next to the extreme amount of research that has gone into the Holocaust.

So let me be clear, as a mod here: Discussing the the Holocaust is fine, it is an important historical event and can be discussed as such. But any attempt at denying, downplaying or legitimizing it is entirely unacceptable and will be met with swift mod action.

Liberated *some* camps. Little blemish of history, but the Allied forces kept 'sexual deviants' (LGBTQ people) in the camps, often times for years, and even after such torture then refused to recognize them as victims of state persecution. Something the German government refused to apologize for until the 21st century. Little sidebar of history when people say nebulous things like 'liberated' the camps. Um, no... many of those camps were still full of people. They just exchanged one prison guard complement for another.

Something all European powers and the U.S. *barring Germany* have refused to officially acknowledge and recognize was a thing. Even then LGBTQ people and their families have received little if any compensation for their suffering.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
.... the Allied forces kept 'sexual deviants' (LGBTQ people) in the camps, often times for years, and even after such torture then refused to recognize them as official victims of persecution. ...

What the fucking fuck? So the camps as they found them were just left to run? They 're-purposed' them?
I can't comprehend how this works.

Kwak:

Addendum_Forthcoming:
.... the Allied forces kept 'sexual deviants' (LGBTQ people) in the camps, often times for years, and even after such torture then refused to recognize them as official victims of persecution. ...

What the fucking fuck? So the camps as they found them were just left to run? They 're-purposed' them?
I can't comprehend how this works.

Because sodomy laws existed in the UK and USA at the time, they felt uncomfortable with releasing people convicted of what was viewed as a valid reason.

Yes, it's horrible.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Liberated *some* camps. Little blemish of history, but the Allied forces kept 'sexual deviants' (LGBTQ people) in the camps, often times for years, and even after such torture then refused to recognize them as victims of state persecution. Something the German government refused to apologize for until the 21st century. Little sidebar of history when people say nebulous things like 'liberated' the camps. Um, no... many of those camps were still full of people. They just exchanged one prison guard complement for another.

Something all European powers and the U.S. *barring Germany* have refused to officially acknowledge and recognize was a thing. Even then LGBTQ people and their families have received little if any compensation for their suffering.

And this is an example on how to have a productive discussion related to the Holocaust, thank you.

Kwak:

What the fucking fuck? So the camps as they found them were just left to run? They 're-purposed' them?
I can't comprehend how this works.

As always, it gets worse...

They then argued for 'conventional' imprisonment after the horrors of the camps, and in what can only be seen as cruelty beyond compare, refused to recognize the horrors people faced in said camps as time served under the new laws and penalties for their """crimes""". They were then thrown into the barbaric conditions of the post-War prison systems managed and propped up by the U.S. and European nations.

So yes... continental Europe was still burning, the innocent victims of the War had their testicles boiled off in boiling water, forcibly castrated, mass starved, raped with inanimate objects from prison guard abuse, experimented on, denied liberty once the Third Reich fell, and then thrown into prison after many were kept in the camps awaiting 'trials' under a new provisional government...

So Europeans prioritized spending money on keeping victims of the Third Reich (now victims of tthe West in general) under guard even as Europeans were homeless, utility services were shattered and entire cities gutted.

People are fucked in the head.

The narrative of 'liberating the camps' is historical revisionism... the contempt for humanity was still present well and truly after the conflict.

Avnger:
This one is fun too. I especially like "If you are using a hypothetical threat of violence to justify pre-emptive violence, you are no better." Were any Israelis injured during the demonstrations? How many of the 50+ killed and thousands injured were proven to be engaged in or about to immediately engage in violence before they were shot by IDF soldiers?

=================================

I try really hard not to make assumptions, but, mate, you've made it explicitly clear that you don't care when Palestinians (brown and largely Muslim) people are attacked yet get very upset when the idea of even potentially treating American Nazis (white and largely Christian) as anything less than model citizens. How do you expect us to see this as anything other than Islamophobia, racism, and/or both?

First of all, mate, don't sneak mahoosive edits like this into what was originally a much ado about nothing post. It's rather rude.

Second, again we come back to the very different situation between fisticuffs in rural USA versus 40,000 people massing against a border in what is being lauded as a "March of Return". A situation where all signs were overtly hostile - burning tyres to conceal vision is not typical protester activity, for instance, but would be a smart way to get up to no good. Where the military wing of the organising faction have a record of placing their activities amongst civilians.

Whereas in the US example, nobody was overtly hostile to the police. The police could go in and use close-quarter policing techniques with no real risk to life. And, if you properly read the threads rather than trying to pick archaic quotes as some form of "gotcha", you will notice that I repeatedly said that there should have been a stronger police presence at whichever one of your various US demonstrations this was about.

As for your previous point, there's insufficient information to know exactly why particular individuals were gunned down. It's obvious that they were specifically identified, though. And again, the difference between this and the US is, there is a borderline open warfare scenario between Hamas and Israel, making due process / rules of engagement slightly different (to military combatants not civilians), whereas in the US example, it occurs in a civil context and hence due process can be realistically expected to be followed.

Because ultimately, this all comes back to the Hamas military wing. They engage while in civilian clothing and they have a record of hiding their activities among civilians. If they had the decency to respect rules of engagement, there would be no reason that this had to have happened. As it is, I can't really blame the Israeli's for what is a harsh but understandable response.

But no, if you want to imply some form of racism on the basis of my opinion on what was a completely different scenario which occurred in a completely different part of the world at a completely different time, feel free. It's not like people have complex opinions based on more than a single variable or anything.

Catnip1024:
there would be no reason that this had to have happened.

There wasn't any such reason. Israeli snipers didn't have to shoot the protestors. Israeli settlers didn't have to perform a massive series of land-grabs in the occupied Palestinian territories. Israeli voters didn't have to elect right-wing governments that want to ethnically cleanse Palestine. None of this is "necessary" except to accomplish the destruction of the Palestinian people and the expropriation of their lands.

edit:

Well this is totally not suspect at all, nothing to see here: Israel bill seeks to criminalise documentation of soldiers' actions

Seanchaidh:
There wasn't any such reason. Israeli snipers didn't have to shoot the protestors. Israeli settlers didn't have to perform a massive series of land-grabs in the occupied Palestinian territories. Israeli voters didn't have to elect right-wing governments that want to ethnically cleanse Palestine. None of this is "necessary" except to accomplish the destruction of the Palestinian people and the expropriation of their lands.

edit:

Well this is totally not suspect at all, nothing to see here: Israel bill seeks to criminalise documentation of soldiers? actions

The point is, you have to respect that there are multiple sides to the clusterfuck that is the middle east. There is no "X good, Y bad". There is no expectation that people will behave if given the chance. There are idiots on both sides, there are war crimes on both sides. Demonising one side ignores the fact that the other side forced them down that path.

As for the edit, the UN has a distinctly pro-Palestine slant. Why not criminalise activity which will be used to support one-sided bullshit charges?

Catnip1024:
Demonising one side ignores the fact that the other side forced them down that path.

Do please tell me how Palestine "forced" Israel to perform a series of expansionist land grabs that severely curtailed the Palestinian people's ability to sustain itself. Tell me how they "forced" Israel to turn the Gaza strip into a de facto ghetto, complete with a massive list of things that are illegal to import or keep in Gaza, such as concrete, rebar, chocolate, fruit preserves and pharmaceuticals on WHOs list of basic medicines (like antibiotics). Tell me how Palestine "forced" Israel to bomb hospitals, fire ordinance from attack helicopters into suburbs or send main battle tanks into crowded areas where they demolish buildings.

Don't get me wrong, the Palestinians have done some bad shit since 1948, but no one but the Israelis are responsible for what the Israelis do. That Hamas, Hezbollah and the rest have been conducting largely inefficient mortar and rocket attacks for the last two decades or have been kidnapping or killing the occasional Israeli soldier does not mean that Israel is "forced" to do any of the things they are doing to the Palestinians. So when the Palestinian people rise up to protest the absolutely atrocious conditions on the Gaza Strip, conditions imposed on Gaza by Israel, and the IDF responds by killing people that get too close to the wall they've erected to "contain" (compare: Warzaw Ghetto) the Palestinians, the blame for all the deaths still falls on Israel for their repeated use of exaggerated force.

One should always be able to realize that two sides can be doing bad shit, while acknowledging that one of the sides is much, much worse. And no matter if you look at it in philosophical terms or absolute numbers, Israel is the absolute bad guy in the Palestine-Israel conflict.

Gethsemani:
Do please tell me how Palestine "forced" Israel to perform a series of expansionist land grabs that severely curtailed the Palestinian people's ability to sustain itself. Tell me how they "forced" Israel to turn the Gaza strip into a de facto ghetto, complete with a massive list of things that are illegal to import or keep in Gaza, such as concrete, rebar, chocolate, fruit preserves and pharmaceuticals on WHOs list of basic medicines (like antibiotics). Tell me how Palestine "forced" Israel to bomb hospitals, fire ordinance from attack helicopters into suburbs or send main battle tanks into crowded areas where they demolish buildings.

The reason the Israeli government is so much further right than most of Europe is because they are permenantly under threat. Even now their neighbours have more or less fought themselves to the point where a conventional threat is not really credible, there are regular lone wolf attacks, rocket attacks, etc. Where do you think European politics would end up under such a scenario?

When the Gazans were permitted to import goods, they imported rockets. Every freedom they had was exploited as a means to cause harm. By a certain minority, but a significant and regular enough minority that action is warranted.

Note that the destroyed hospital was either holding or next to a building holding Hamas military weaponry, iirc.

Don't get me wrong, the Palestinians have done some bad shit since 1948, but no one but the Israelis are responsible for what the Israelis do. That Hamas, Hezbollah and the rest have been conducting largely inefficient mortar and rocket attacks for the last two decades or have been kidnapping or killing the occasional Israeli soldier does not mean that Israel is "forced" to do any of the things they are doing to the Palestinians. So when the Palestinian people rise up to protest the absolutely atrocious conditions on the Gaza Strip, conditions imposed on Gaza by Israel, and the IDF responds by killing people that get too close to the wall they've erected to "contain" (compare: Warzaw Ghetto) the Palestinians, the blame for all the deaths still falls on Israel for their repeated use of exaggerated force.

See, I'm a believer in self-accountability. For instance, if I punched Anthony Joshua in the face, and he knocked me down, and every time he tried to help me back up I punched him again, I would accept that maybe I have a problem. And that it's my own fault I got hurt.

So sure, the Israeli's are responsible for their actions. Sure, I feel sorry for the individual Palestinians who genuinely wanted to stand there and shout a bit. But I have no sympathy for the state. Until they accept that they have contributed to the way things are, and sort their shit out, and decide to go down the genuine diplomatic route, the state deserves no sympathy.

One should always be able to realize that two sides can be doing bad shit, while acknowledging that one of the sides is much, much worse. And no matter if you look at it in philosophical terms or absolute numbers, Israel is the absolute bad guy in the Palestine-Israel conflict.

Except it is generally Hamas that breaks truces. Or factions within. And for a place wanting to be treated as a legitimate state, if you cannot keep faith when you make agreements, you are the worse party.

Catnip1024:
The point is, you have to respect that there are multiple sides to the clusterfuck that is the middle east. There is no "X good, Y bad". There is no expectation that people will behave if given the chance. There are idiots on both sides, there are war crimes on both sides.

Yawntastically superficial truism that helps illuminate nothing at all.

Demonising one side ignores the fact that the other side forced them down that path.

Well, Israel was forced to defend itself when invaded by its neighbours. After that, very little at all has been forced.

There are plenty of reasonable cause and effect relationships. Israel defending itself made certain actions (such as ocupation of the Palestinian territories) advantageous to that. Palestinian anger and violence is an inevitable result of their continued oppression, because that's what unhappy, oppressed populations do. None of these are really "forced", however. Israel certainly isn't forced to continue stealing land by colonising land it doesn't own.

Nevertheless, the point we're at now is that Israel is not credibly threatened with invasion by its neighbours. Without this justification, it has little convincing reason left to continue holding the territories. It employs the "self-defence" rationale now against the Palestinians. But the Palestinians are patently minimal threat to Israel (hence the absurdly lop-sided casualty figures) and perversely, the continued denial of self-determination due to occupation is the major factor inciting Palestinian unhappiness and violence. Violence can only start to end when the Palestinian grievances are largely addressed... or they are effectively annihilated as a people.

Israel's national sense of fear and insecurity over the last three generations is understandable. But we have to realise that Israel has nearly all the power, the most ability to cause change, and (via the occupation) causes the single most serious, continued aggravation. For all that it got to this state through a lot of complicated factors and many sides, if Israel now has the most ability to end it then it is mostly Israel's responsibility to end it. Israel, evidently, is not interested in ending it. Why should anyone sugar that pill?

As for the edit, the UN has a distinctly pro-Palestine slant.

Or is Israel just a colossal recidivist under international law?

I can totally get why the Arab nations always vote against Israel. But you also have to consider why dozens of broadly neutral countries (e.g. China) and even broadly Israeli-allied countries (e.g. Western European) also routinely condemn Israeli actions in the UN. If the only conclusion that occurs to you is that everyone is biased against Israel, you're the one with a problem seeing Israel neutrally.

Catnip1024:
Except it is generally Hamas that breaks truces. Or factions within. And for a place wanting to be treated as a legitimate state, if you cannot keep faith when you make agreements, you are the worse party.

This part is ironic, coming from someone who constantly defends Donald Trump. But on topic: Yes, Hamas and the Palestinians in general have been the ones to break most (not all) truces. However, it is hardly surprising when you consider that Israel doesn't have a reputation for actually upholding their end of the truces (such as halting building and settling in their settlements on conquered Palestinian territory) and have a reputation for doing everything they can to put the Palestinians in a vice. It is technically within the letter of the truce, but when you forbid the import or possession of basic goods, forbid people from leaving the area you forced them into (technically they can leave, but since they must leave via Israel and Israel won't allow them into Israel... yeah, you get the idea) and then build a wall to make sure that people absolutely can not leave the squalid ghetto you are forcing them into, you are also forcing a confrontation that does not need to happen.

And this is what Israel has been doing for the last 2 decades or so. They don't need to attack Palestine first, because they've got the stranglehold and all they need to do is squeeze, by restricting travel or imports or increasing "military patrols" to bring the hurt down on the Palestinians. You can claim self-accountability all you like, but Israel is like a bully that provokes the weaker guy into striking in frustration before delivering a massive beat down and then declaring that it was self defense. Hamas are not nice, but since Netanyahu and his buddies have been explicit in their desire not to seek a compromise with Palestine and eager in their intentions to commit a slow genocide by taking away basic necessities from the Gaza strip, what recourse does Hamas have?

Catnip1024:
As for the edit, the UN has a distinctly pro-Palestine slant. Why not criminalise activity which will be used to support one-sided bullshit charges?

Because making the documentation of war crimes illegal encourages soldiers to commit war crimes?

Agema:
But the Palestinians are patently minimal threat to Israel (hence the absurdly lop-sided casualty figures) and perversely, the continued denial of self-determination due to occupation is the major factor inciting Palestinian unhappiness and violence. Violence can only start to end when the Palestinian grievances are largely addressed... or they are effectively annihilated as a people.

First, the Palestinians are a significant enough threat to the average person on the street. Constant knife attacks are more than an inconvenience to those forced to suffer them.

Second, even were Israel not building anywhere, the "aggravation" would still exist. A large portion of Palestinians don't believe Israel has any right to exist. The same with it's neighbours. Blaming this on settlements is just obfuscation.

Or is Israel just a colossal recidivist under international law?

My problem with this argument is, for every international law Israel has defied / broken, Hamas has done just as much. Maybe if there were an equal number of talks railing against Hamas, we'd get somewhere.

Gethsemani:
This part is ironic, coming from someone who constantly defends Donald Trump.

What's ironic about it? I've not defended a single broken deal of his.

You can claim self-accountability all you like, but Israel is like a bully that provokes the weaker guy into striking in frustration before delivering a massive beat down and then declaring that it was self defense. Hamas are not nice, but since Netanyahu and his buddies have been explicit in their desire not to seek a compromise with Palestine and eager in their intentions to commit a slow genocide by taking away basic necessities from the Gaza strip, what recourse does Hamas have?

In the past, there was movement towards greater cooperation. It ended violently. There are constant conflicts breaking out. There has not been a peaceful period of time sufficient to warrant trust. Sure, it's hard to see a solution. But lobbing missiles is helping nobody except the Israeli right wing.

Catnip1024:
Sure, it's hard to see a solution. But lobbing missiles is helping nobody except the Israeli right wing.

And illegally bulldozing palestinian homes, businesses and neighborhoods and going "This is our land now, scram or we'll shoot you" is helping nobody but hamas.

Catnip1024:
My problem with this argument is, for every international law Israel has defied / broken, Hamas has done just as much. Maybe if there were an equal number of talks railing against Hamas, we'd get somewhere.

Thank you for helping to establish that the state of Israel should be held to the same standards as a terrorist group that somehow governs a small territory.

CM156:

Catnip1024:
My problem with this argument is, for every international law Israel has defied / broken, Hamas has done just as much. Maybe if there were an equal number of talks railing against Hamas, we'd get somewhere.

Thank you for helping to establish that the state of Israel should be held to the same standards as a terrorist group that somehow governs a small territory.

Well considering we now live in a world where people believe the British government, MI5 and the RUC should all be held to the same standard as the IRA it's hardly surprising. Remember folks, steal land and attempt genocide: a-okay. Attempt to take back that land, that's an act of unprovoked aggression.

Catnip1024:
First, the Palestinians are a significant enough threat to the average person on the street. Constant knife attacks are more than an inconvenience to those forced to suffer them.

I'll just leave this chart of civilians killed due to violence between 2000-2014 here. Notice how in the last ten years there have been less Israeli deaths due to Palestinian violence then there have been Palestinian deaths due to Israeli violence in the last ten days. It is a false equivalence to say that random knife attacks and imprecise and occasional rocket attacks (that often miss the very cities they are aiming at) is as severe as trained soldiers opening fire on people armed, at best, with rocks and the occasional molotov cocktail. The violence exercised by Israel against Palestine is orders of magnitude more severe, more traumatizing and more lethal then anything Palestine can retaliate with.

Catnip1024:
My problem with this argument is, for every international law Israel has defied / broken, Hamas has done just as much. Maybe if there were an equal number of talks railing against Hamas, we'd get somewhere.

That Hamas is bad is not really what anyone is saying. What most of us are saying is that Israel operates on a level several orders of magnitude above the kind of damage that Hamas can do, which makes Israel the bigger problem. Just to put this into perspective: Israel's current handling of the Gaza Strip fits the definitions of genocide, especially parts C and D of Article II of the Convention Prevention and Punishment of the crime of Genocide:

c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

Denying Palestinians proper health care, forcing them to live in poverty without access to daily necessities like food and construction materials and systematically using military force against civilians all fit the bill here. So why should we talk about Hamas? They are all hot air and bluster compared to the damage Israel inflicts on Palestinians every day.

Catnip1024:
In the past, there was movement towards greater cooperation. It ended violently. There are constant conflicts breaking out. There has not been a peaceful period of time sufficient to warrant trust. Sure, it's hard to see a solution. But lobbing missiles is helping nobody except the Israeli right wing.

You'll excuse me if I have some degree of leniency when desperate people does desperate things because someone is forcing them to live in abject poverty and denies them any and all chances to either leave or improve their situation. As I said above, Israel is doing much, much more damage on one of their bad days then Hamas does on a good year.

Catnip1024:
First, the Palestinians are a significant enough threat to the average person on the street. Constant knife attacks are more than an inconvenience to those forced to suffer them.

Yeah, but injuries heal. Right?

Catnip1024:
First, the Palestinians are a significant enough threat to the average person on the street. Constant knife attacks are more than an inconvenience to those forced to suffer them.

Well then, you as may as well advocate the UK chucks all its Muslims into concentration camps too, because that's just about as proportional. For the last 10 years, about 10 Israeli civilians have been killed a year by Palestinians. That's a murder rate in the region of 0.1 deaths per 100,000. Israel's actual murder rate is over 2 per 100,000. Which means Palestinians are over ten times worse at killing Israelis than Israelis are.

So do you really think that's a good reason to steal the land of and deny self-determination to 4.5 million people?

Second, even were Israel not building anywhere, the "aggravation" would still exist. A large portion of Palestinians don't believe Israel has any right to exist. The same with it's neighbours. Blaming this on settlements is just obfuscation.

So what? A large proportion of Northern Irish don't believe the UK has any right to own Northern Ireland. It doesn't mean they don't accept the reality of the status quo and are intent on blowing shit up until they get their way. This is because people believe lots of things, some of which can temper, contextualise or oppose other beliefs. Such is the way with beliefs. And, incidentally, the fact a small number of Northern Irish did blow shit up was not deemed an insuperable barrier to a political settlement as we'll all recall.

All of Israel's neighbours except perhaps Syria have accepted Israel's right to exist. Likewise, some of their populations might begrudge it, but that doesn't really matter a damn. And anyway, I dare say they'll be a lot more amenable to Israel existing if Israel wasn't busy oppressing their fellow Arabs.

My problem with this argument is, for every international law Israel has defied / broken, Hamas has done just as much. Maybe if there were an equal number of talks railing against Hamas, we'd get somewhere.

You seem to be unclear on what the role of the UN is. The UN oversees the activities of sovereign states in international dealings and humanitarian conduct. Terrorist-inclined local governments are well below its normal remit. Criticisms of Hamas are hardly in short supply from all sorts of relevant bodies.

Furthermore, if all you can say to defend a state is that it's better than a terrorist group, you're damning it with faint praise.

Catnip1024:
See, I'm a believer in self-accountability...So sure, the Israeli's are responsible for their actions.

You sure about that?

Catnip1024:
Demonising one side ignores the fact that the other side forced them down that path?

So which is it? Are they responsible for their actions and need to be held accountable for them? Or are they "being forced" into it by the actions of an enemy? Because you seem to be applying the first to the Palestinians but the second to Israel which seems like a rather disingenuous double standard

CM156:
How about a David and Goliath situation where both sides send their best warrior to fight to the death and whichever side wins gets to own Gaza and the West Bank?

Some people might call ritualized fights to the death like this "barbaric" but I would call it a hell of a lot better than what's currently going on.

And I'm only slightly kidding.

My ideal future is one where disputes between nations and states are resolved via televised robot death matches.

It'd solve the problems with the NFL, too, because robots can't get concussions and can be programmed not to kneel during the anthem.

CM156:
Thank you for helping to establish that the state of Israel should be held to the same standards as a terrorist group that somehow governs a small territory.

Oh, dear. If only they were.

bastardofmelbourne:
My ideal future is one where disputes between nations and states are resolved via televised robot death matches.

More civilized then what we currently have, I suppose.

It'd solve the problems with the NFL, too, because robots can't get concussions and can be programmed not to kneel during the anthem.

How about police robots trained not to racially profile suspects?

Oh, dear. If only they were.

I think it's uncontroversial to say Hamas is horrible.

bastardofmelbourne:
My ideal future is one where disputes between nations and states are resolved via televised robot death matches.

It'd solve the problems with the NFL, too, because robots can't get concussions and can be programmed not to kneel during the anthem.

Better: they can be programmed to kneel during the anthem.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here