fionwe1987

Who has ignored that? We're arguing that the fact that Hamas started the war doesn't give Israel license to do what it wants in retaliation. We're discussing the specifics of their actions in response to Hamas. Which assumes Hamas started this, so I don't know what you mean by arguing this is being ignored. That's what you keep saying to distract from the conversation, to try and make the case that the only people who would object to Israel's actions are somehow justifying Hamas's. Ie, fitting a neat narrative into the complexity and nuance of the situation. Yes, it does. Your selectiveness, and focus on "they started it" to the exclusion of all else is bonkers. To fight the Nazis wasn't wrong. To commit war crimes in the process was. Half this population is children. Are you certain they're responsible for their government? It is, which is why "he started it" and "tit for tat" are not arguments that make sense in this conversation.

Define recent, please. Except one side here does think there's a neat history that allows them to view today's conflict in isolation, and has repeatedly dismissed past events as irrelevant. I don't have access to the article, but I can tell you now that religious motivation is susceptible to secular pressures, and always has been. You will note that the religious aspect didn't stop Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia, from coming to the brink of normalizing relations with Israel.

This is a good summary of what's been happening on this board. And you're right. It drives me bonkers to see people actively ignore history, context and current day evidence to continue hardening their hearts and legitimizing civilian death.

What? No. How is the end of Israel and the displacement of its citizens "peace"? I don't even understand how anyone would think this. Any peace of course would recognize Israel. Anything else is a fantasy, especially given the geological realities.

Kissedbyfire said "attacks on civilians should be condemned no matter who the attacker is". To which, @Ran you replied "attacks on lawful military targets, OTOH". I'd like some clarification. There's a balancing act between the number of civilians estimated to be hurt, and the value of a target in military terms, that needs to be satisfied for something to be determined a "lawful military target". The civilians remain civilians, even if this determination is made. A civilian death as part of a lawful military target is still to be condemned, no? Or are we saying that loss of life is of diminished importance because the person had the luck of being near a legitimate military target? You seem to have gone past a legal defense of Israeli action to saying we don't need to condemn civilian death if it is legal. Not sure if you meant to do that, but that's what you've said.

You're right if you release terrorists and do nothing else, you're likely to get more terrorism. But released terrorists causing violence isn't the only balancing act you need to think about. Escalating violence also breeds more violence. It makes today's children tomorrow's terrorists. So you have to ask that second question too. Am I, in the name of safety, seeding further instability and risk? I've seen no evidence the "go in right now and destroy them all" crowd has done any kind of reckoning about this cost of their preferred response.

If this were a real trolley problem, you would not always land on the same solution. Yet the hawks always do, regardless of the specific terrorist attack, or the country so attacked. Something must be done. It must be done to prove that you're not a pushover. That such past actions have proved no such thing, and haven't acted as any kind of deterrent, is to be ignored. Perpetuate the cycle of violence. Maintain the image of toughness. Solve nothing. Rinse. Repeat. That's the realpolitik of today. Bunch of cowards.

https://www.wired.com/story/gaza-internet-blackout-israel/ I hope, at the least, that what is happening leads to the "rules of war" such as they are, being modified to make this illegal. Communication is core infrastructure, and indiscriminate destruction of it hurts civilians more than anyone. It cannot be allowed.

And the population of Gaza is, I'm assuming, way younger than Beirut's was in the 80s.

You didn't discuss Oppenheimer with me, where my criticism was political, and was based on real life events. You dismissed it,which I'm sure gave you great pleasure. This wasn't a discussion though, so please don't falsely label it. Because you talk about your views on this show using the language of butthurt, wokeness, censorship... You're here not to discuss the show but prove us wrong for your entertainment. And when you've been given proof of it, you've invented excuses about not wanting to discuss these things in public. You've repeatedly said there can be no enjoyment of this show because the writers are awful, take pleasure in desecrating RJs work, and so on. You've said you're glad we enjoy the show, and you've said our joy in the show has made us band together, that we must be getting pleasure from banding together against you... I eagerly await you lying about all this, or dodging it in some way. So you are scientifically accurate in your dislike of the show, but we heathens are too dumb to know what we're consuming, and we're to be glad you condescendingly allow us our enjoyment anyway? Gee, thanks! No. Your interpretation of those merits is not a given. Nor do you get to assert their superiority without discussion, and when pressed to discuss, you've backed out. That's ranting. And we don't have to put up with it. I'm sure you are.

Please do. That you think this is a political discussion where your voice matters and therefore needs to be engaged with is at the core of your problem. You can dislike the show. You can talk about it. But you have no business convincing people who enjoy it that they're wrong.

Ugh. And looping in kids into this toxicity, too. This kind of crass mockery is the inevitable result of dehumanizing the other. And feeds back on that dehumanization, allowing for more heartless actions to perpetuate the cycle of violence. We really are a fucked up species, aren't we?

We absolutely are. We seem to keep inventing ways to be ever more horrible. A race to the bottom we have no reason to engage in. Yes, but even if we assume the Israeli government and the IDF have been white as the driven snow in the past, this would still be awful and wrong. This is BS. We're not talking about communications infrastructure being hit. We're talking about Israel deliberately imposing a blackout. Both are happening. Stop picking the one you feel comfortable rebutting. The sheer dishonesty here, given what is being discussed, is unacceptable. Yeah these are all conveniences, not necessities, of war. And they're coming at the cost of civilian lives, and give the lie to the idea that the bombing is targeted. I'd love to see one of the members of the "shrug, it's war" camp explain to me how you use cellphone signals to target bombs when you're blocking cellphone signals. Orwellian, the way everything Israel does is legitimate. It doesn't stand up to basic logical scrutiny.

I've seen multiple articles mention the increasing loss of communication. Gazans are rapidly losing access to the internet from TheEconomist https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2023/10/20/gazans-are-rapidly-losing-access-to-the-internet We've been assured Israeli SIGINT is excellent and crucial to determine from afar where Hamas targets are. And that this is the basis on which we should trust that Israel isn't commiting war crimes. Can someone explain how signals intelligence works when there are no signals? Further, can someone explain why Israel is going above and beyond in constraining communications? Yes, of course, Hamas will be using them, but so will civilians, and there are real benefits to internet connectivity during a mass migration. We've been assured by members of this board repeatedly that Israel has no choice. That it is doing what only any other nation would. It is not. This is not something that has happened in every battle. Israel has more control over Gaza than most nations do over enemy combatants. And Israel is fully responsible for how it uses this power, no matter what trauma its citizens were subjected to. This is cover for war crimes. This perpetuates war crime, since it prevents proper identification. This is criminal. Inhumane. Disproportionate, deliberate and disgusting.

I don't know. Is it? That's what I asked you. Does Hamas want a negotiated peace, plebiscite, etc that I laid out? Some subsection of that? Or is it a retaliation from Israel? You've now claimed both, so I assume you're disputing the retaliation claim now? Please clarify. Ah, we now come to the first clear cut goalpost shifting. You have said the civilian deaths are justified because Israel had no other option. But you're now saying it does have options, only it will, in your estimation, lose more than the other parties in the deal. Shouldn't this question at least get asked of the Israeli people before committing them to a course that directly makes such a deal harder by the hour? Would you support a ceasefire, exchange of prisoners, etc. to buy time for an Israeli referendum which presents multiple options, and is held in a short time frame, and the results of which will be binding on the current unity government? You are insisting that criticism of the Israeli government be in proportion to criticism of Hamas. Not in intensity or stated position, but in reiteration. You're failing to see that by focussing my criticism on the Israeli government, I'm according the Israeli people the respect due a democratic state that they actually do have a say over. Believe what you will about the Palestinian ability to resist Hamas, would you at least agree that the Israeli government is susceptible to more reason by virtue of whatever remains of the Israeli democratic tradition, despite Netanyahu's attacks on it? You are measuring the wrong metric if you think the greater number of words directed at criticizing the Israeli government is about giving Hamas any kind of pass. They are murderers, rapists, arsonists, kidnappers and child killers. I have seen no evidence to make me change my mind, I need no video to feel utter contempt for them. I do not know, though, why I must keep finding new words to criticize these monsters. It is exceedingly odd to be asked to repeat judgement that cannot change in new words, as payment to speak of the aspect of this situation that is evolving, and hopefully will evolve past this current madness. I will not say it again, but if you insist I must, I can copy and paste my condemnation of Hamas, or any version of it you prefer, at the start of any future reply to you. My views on them will not change, though. It will be a performance to satisfy a nonsensical metric. No, it really isn't. I'm saying that restraint from total destruction isn't proof of anything. That holds whether you have causus belli or not. Or are you making an argument that maximalist escalation is the immediate and only option if you have cause for war?

Russia could have nuked Ukraine on day 1. They didn't! Clearly they're restrained actors only doing what any nation would do, right? Right? This "defense" is astonishing in its utter stupidity.

Wrong. You said Hamas wanted to invite retaliation from Israel that would cause widespread civilian death. Are you now claiming that they secretly wanted a negotiated peace that would require them to hand in their guns, return all hostages, and lose their power and control over Gaza, one that would acknowledge and codify Israel's status as a legitimate state in the region, and would culminate in a two state solution? You need to figure out which diabolical plan you think Hamas is enacting. If your answer is "anything that will let me pretend harming Gazan civilians is justified", then, politely, I have no use for your opinions anymore. Then, you need to give something approaching proof that this is the diabolical plan Hamas was enacting. And then, if that is indeed what Hamas was doing, given that the solution will be a decent shot at a lasting solution, then yes, I'll say it's fine to give them what they want. So we're going to continue to make up shit? Most countries wouldn't cut off electricity, food and resources to civilians. That is a war crime, period. You are. Please stop this double game. You keep pointing that finger while ignoring your own pro-murder stance. You're no different from them. Yeah I'm really not concerned about your convenient interpretation of my words to continue your noxious positions. It is disgusting.

What? Heck no. I'm not advocating for doing nothing. That's a strawman you're creating. Here's something Israel can do: stop the bombing. Offer the Palestinian people the choice of a plebiscite, in x years, after a stable ceasefire is maintained by both sides, if Hamas releases all hostages, demilitarizes and allows Gaza to be administered by an international coalition temporary government. Meanwhile, Israel pledges an immediate crackdown on violence in the West Bank, and commits to withdrawing from WB settlements. The plebiscite will be to declare a state of Palestine, and final borders, the specific features of a right of return, etc to be negotiated with the elected, post-plebiscite government, brokered by the UN/a coalition of states friendly to Israel or Palestine, within 3 years of the Plebiscite and election. What is "this"? Note here that you're refusing certain option, then pretending there are no options, to justify civilian death. Yeah your guess would be wrong. You're determined to label anyone with a critical opinion of the Israeli government as only pretending to have sympathy for Israelis. What horseshit.

You? If you ask "what other choice is there", you are saying this is a legitimate choice. Whatever you think about the feasibility of other choices, that doesn't change that this choice is wrong. On top of that, you're saying "Hamas wanted this, therefore it is Hamas's fault". Is Israel in the business of giving Hamas what it wants? If so, why? Why give Hamas what it wants in the name of destroying Hamas? And if Israel is giving Hamas what it apparently wants, then it is acting as Hamas's agent in causing mass death and terror, and deserves no sympathy.

The only world where this kind of civilian death can be met with a shrug and a "what can you do, it's war" is one where Palestinians lives are worth less than Israeli lives. Significantly less. I refuse to live in that world.

The current Prime Minister of Israel has credibility on how to defeat Hamas, or if it is possible? I do not think it is your intellect that is blocking you. You just lack the ability to forget the Palestinian people are people too. You lack the ability to declare with a straight face that somehow this is all normal warfare. Good on you.

I think if we stretch terms like "collateral damage" to cover situations like this, all we're doing is fitting legal language to actions that are morally indistinguishable from Hamas's. It's especially troubling when international bodies that do call this out are dismissed. If Israel is under the impression that it's decisions on what is and isn't a suitable target are going to be taken at face value, it is, bluntly, wrong.

You do realize what you're supporting blocks what you prefer, right? And in this thread, no one is referring to Hamas's capability to surrender, we're all talked about the absurdity of saying it is up to the Gazans to convince them of this when 1) there's no offer from Isreal on what happens if Hamas surrenders, 2) Bombs are falling and the population is on the move, under crippling siege conditions.

You've put yourself adjacent to this camp, though. Right, but it doesn't follow that it is the responsibility of Gazans, while dodging missiles, to get rid of Hamas, too. A few threads ago, we had someone post an old protest video from Tel Aviv which was claimed to be a post-October 7 protest, and someone rightly pointed out the absurdity of expecting 500000 people marching on the streets soon after a terrorist attack. Now switch terrorist attack to a bombing campaign that has already seen 8000+ bombs dropped. The notion of Hamas being internally thrown off during this campaign is nonsensical. If that is what Israel had wanted, they could have halted their bombing campaign and ground invasion while they figured out what they wanted and communicated that to the people in Gaza. But an immediate, overwhelming response is what was presented as the "only choice". That this response prevents Hamas from facing internal pressure is not on the Gazans people, surely?

Excuse me? Modern warfare is now defined a crippling siege that affects civilians to this extent? The issue with the neonatal ward is the loss of electricity, because Israel cut it off. This is not an inevitable consequence of modern warfare. If it is, modern warfare is terrorism. I see no distinction. Just because this is terror unleashed by the state, I see no reason to accept it as moral, and it most certainly isn't legal. No, I really wouldn't. Your issue is you're getting dazzled by the technical capabilities. That isn't what I'm questioning. I'm questioning if those technological solutions work during a mass migration in such a densely packed area. And how well does cell phone tracking and hacking work when there's a mass of a million+ people moving in a tight area? Ever struggled with cell reception in New York city? Now imagine that with *everyone* moving. Are cell phone towers being safeguarded from damage to continue allowing tracking and signal transfer at the same rates as "peacetime"? If not, how good is the signals intelligence Israel is receiving now, in the chaos conditions it has created, compared to normal? How much more is that uncertainty increasing the picking of incorrect targets? But this is the level of citation all across news. This isn't a specifically singular instance of quotation telephone, where sources quote sources quote sources. This is true not just for this guy's statement, it's true for the statements from Hamas too. You seem convinced for some reason that the primary source contradicts the interpretation, but I'm not seeing it. Why do they need hundreds of bombs for one highway? Um... I'm not questioning the speed of the launch of the bombs, or their number. Or that they'll usually land reasonably on target. The technological capability of the Israeli military isn't in question. The technological capability to correctly identify so many targets with any level of precision as to the ratio of civilians to acceptable Hamas targets, especially in the chaos of the mass migration they triggered.. that's what I'm questioning. Then the targeting is indiscriminate. You are required to be certain of minimal civilian loss of life before launching a missile at a site. "We'll shoot the missile and see later if we had the right to" is not acceptable. And since they aren't giving us any proof that they did this kind of analysis, and historically have failed to, I really don't know why you keep insisting they're working within the rules of war. That just isn't true. ETA: removing some assumed pronouns.