Jump to content

Israel - Hamas War VI


Fragile Bird
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

I suspect Netanyahu won't remain in power, though he'll be gone significantly after the current war ends. 

That said, there's no reason to believe that Israelis will not vote in someone similarly inclined to Netanyahu in dealing with Palestine, or worse. Being progressive or left does not mean being less warlike or more inclined to go for peace. Netanyahu, famously, doesn't like doing big military conflicts and prefers spec ops and intel over hard power; the ones who are doing a lot of the heavy lifting in that part right now are not members of Likud. 

The comment I responded to simply does not reflect the reality. Aside from support for Netanyahu, Likud, and further right parties tanking in polls as a result of the judicial overhall (in the case of far right parties) and the Hamas attack (in the case of Likud), another recent poll indicated only 29% of Israelis support an immediate ground offensive, with 49% preferring to wait and try to get the hostages freed. Which is not to say there is not support for a ground offensive at some point, but the idea that the Hamas attacks have driven Israelis to support Netanyahu or driven them to the right or driven them to support bloodthirsty indiscriminate revenge is baseless. It is the sort of analysis being spread by people with no personal connection to the situation talking out of either their own ignorance or BS they picked up from others on social media.

Edited by Bael's Bastard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

People have been way worse in the past.  Mass slavery comes to mind.  The mass butchery in the World Wars is just crazy, where tens of millions died.  Things like genocide were practiced all over the world in the older days.  Countries could get away with doing a lot more back then.  We generally just chalk it up to it being different times.

Pretty much this @kissdbyfire. Not to diminish the awful things happening around the world today, but we're not that far removed from worse times and as you go back in history what you'll find is that we as a species just suck. We glorify ancient Rome and Egypt, but look under the rug and you'll quickly see people sucked as much if not more back then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Gilad Erdan says “this is a dark day for the UN and for mankind” after the UNGA passed the resolution, which urged a humanitarian truce in Gaza.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/27/israel-hamas-war-live-israel-bombs-gaza-overnight-more-than-7000-dead

What? How is it a 'dark day for Mankind' when people want humanitarian efforts? I find this view bizarre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

The comment I responded to simply does not reflect the reality. Aside from support for Netanyahu, Likud, and further right parties tanking in polls as a result of the judicial overhall (in the case of far right parties) and the Hamas attack (in the case of Likud), another recent poll indicated only 29% of Israelis support an immediate ground offensive, with 49% preferring to wait and try to get the hostages freed. Which is not to say there is not support for a ground offensive at some point, but the idea that the Hamas attacks have driven Israelis to support Netanyahu or driven them to the right or driven them to support bloodthirsty indiscriminate revenge is baseless. It is the sort of analysis being spread by people with no personal connection to the situation talking out of either their own ignorance or BS they picked up from others on social media.

Again, going to the right does not mean being more warlike. 

And while the polling above is accurate it is not meaning that that is the most important thing people will vote for. Netanyahu was not voted in because of his views on Gaza alone.

As an example, Benny Gantz ran on a policy of strengthening settlements in the west Bank. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This assault on Gaza has been going on for less than half the length of the Siege of Beirut in 1982 but has managed to kill almost twice as many people, which is truly horrific. The Siege of Beirut only really ended after even Ronald fucking Reagan decided that Israeli tactics had been too brutal, too bloody and too insane, and threatened to cut American weapons funding and even impose sanctions on Israel (Israeli popular opinion also turned against the war, and the Israel government belatedly realised that Ariel Sharon was a fucking lunatic; one of Sharon's aides during the war was one B. Netanyahu).

Hamas sources reporting that they have engaged Israeli forces in the northern Gaza Strip, which seems plausible. Apparently they also destroyed 30 Israeli tanks with 6 antitank grenades, which is less plausible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I'm confused how he ever got to be PM given what he did in Lebanon (and elsewhere).

Well, one can wonder the same about Begin or Shamir becoming PM, considering their past deeds, back in the 1940s. Though to be fair, the mess in Lebanon, the siege of Beirut and the Sabra-Shatila massacre ended Begin's rule and Shamir had a far less "eventful" or bloody mandate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Gaza information blackout ‘risks providing cover for mass atrocities’: HRW

Deborah Brown, the senior technology and human rights researcher at Human Rights Watch, said the near-total communication blackout in the bombarded enclave is preventing people from “communicating with loved ones and accessing life-saving medical and other essential services”.

 

She added: “This information blackout risks providing cover for mass atrocities and contributing to impunity for human rights violations.”

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/28/israel-hamas-war-live-israeli-bombings-intensify-as-gaza-goes-dark

Death toll will probably rise faster even if no deliberate targeting of civilians because people are having real issues accessing ambulances etc. because of the communications issue, or so I've read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

That sounds bad. How many died in Beirut?

Between 4,000 and 5,000. And that was regarded as horrendous at the time. When the USA was negotiating a ceasefire, Sharon got so angry that he might not be able to succeed in his goals (including annihilating the PLO and killing Arafat) that he launched a massive air and artillery strike that killed 300 people in one day, and that was regarded as a horrific massacre by the global community. On the worst individual days of this campaign, that's been exceeded by a factor of two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Israel has been saying, there is already months worth of food, water, medicine, and fuel in Gaza, but Hamas steals and hoards it, while the "humanitarian" organizations and news orgs that sold their souls for access to Hamas's Gaza don't say a word and perpetuate Hamas's narratives. Just as they did for access to Nazi Germany.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/arab-western-officials-agree-hamas-keeping-gaza-food-fuel-for-itself-ny-times/

Edited by Bael's Bastard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/28/israel-hamas-war-live-israeli-bombings-intensify-as-gaza-goes-dark

Death toll will probably rise faster even if no deliberate targeting of civilians because people are having real issues accessing ambulances etc. because of the communications issue, or so I've read.

Honest question, do you only read/watch Al Jazeera? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Honest question, do you only read/watch Al Jazeera? 

No, and I thought this was obvious, given I have also previously posted links to Reuters, the BBC, Associated Press, The Times of Israel, and other sites. Al Jazeera was the first one I checked today because they have, I think, the most people actually in Gaza; when I compare their live feed to the BBC's, they are usually quicker to report things.

Edited by Craving Peaches
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Craving Peaches said:

No, and I thought this was obvious, given I have also posted links to Reuters, the BBC, Associated Press, The Times of Israel, and other sites. Al Jazeera was the first one I checked today because they have, I think, the most people actually in Gaza; when I compare their live feed to the BBC's, they are usually quicker to report things.

It seems like you mostly cite them without considering it's a Qatari state owned media organization just like RT is for Russia and they have a long history of being biased towards certain countries/groups with Israel being arguably the one they're most against. Honestly I don't trust much of what they put out when Qatari interests are at play (they are OTOH, not bad when it comes to reporting on things totally independent of the country's interests). 

Just to give an unrelated example, look at how they reported on the World Cup, the building of the stadiums and the conditions in the country during that time compared to what was being written in most legit Western papers. It was a night a day difference. They repeatedly claimed only a few hundred people died compared to basically everyone else saying probably at least >5,000 did, they denied the government was hold migrants passports when everyone else said they were, they denied slave labor when everyone else said it was happening and the cherry on top was them saying the conditions on the ground for tourists was nice when most people there said they sucked. And when foreign reporters described all of this when in Qatar they were silenced by the Qatari government. 

I'd rely more on center left/right news organizations in Europe far more than Al Jazeera when trying to get an accurate understanding of what's actually happening. They may not have the same level of access, but they also are far less likely to have an agenda, especially if they're also not all that sympathetic to Israel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

considering it's a Qatari state owned media organization

Already considered, had a big discussion about it on one of the previous threads. Would I trust them for information on Qatari workers rights? No. But they are one of the few agencies with people in Gaza. I do check the BBC live feed as well to compare. And Reuters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Werthead said:

This assault on Gaza has been going on for less than half the length of the Siege of Beirut in 1982 but has managed to kill almost twice as many people, which is truly horrific. The Siege of Beirut only really ended after even Ronald fucking Reagan decided that Israeli tactics had been too brutal, too bloody and too insane, and threatened to cut American weapons funding and even impose sanctions on Israel (Israeli popular opinion also turned against the war, and the Israel government belatedly realised that Ariel Sharon was a fucking lunatic; one of Sharon's aides during the war was one B. Netanyahu).

 

I'm curious as to why Biden has been just wringing his hands (figuratively) over the current situation. The USA could be doing a lot more to pressure Israel into a bit more moderation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tears of Lys said:

I'm curious as to why Biden has been just wringing his hands (figuratively) over the current situation. The USA could be doing a lot more to pressure Israel into a bit more moderation.  

Could the upcoming election be playing a part in this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...