Israel - Hamas War VI

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

36 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Hamas started this. The victims under discussion are the citizens of Gaza.

Exactly. It's like the victims in Israel are already a distant memory despite there still are hundreds of hostages and Hamas is still launching rockets. 

[Liffguard]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You seem to be subscribing to the belief that in a fight the person who punches first isn't responsible for the fight because they're weaker than the person they punched.

This obscures more than it clarifies. We're not talking about a fight between two individuals.

[Heartofice]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

There is, really, no 'safe' place to go in Gaza. There are less unsafe places, but nothing is actually safe. 

Didn't they tell all civilians to leave North Gaza?

[Ran]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Exactly. It's like the victims in Israel are already a distant memory despite there still are hundreds of hostages and Hamas is still launching rockets. 

Something like 125000 Israelis are internally displaced from their homes, as well, because of the war and Hamas's attacks.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

A point in the past that happened a few weeks ago that started the war? Odd take. 

Not really. The imminent threat from Hamas is done, right now. There is absolutely no sign that Hamas has the capability to do anything more than launch a few dozen rockets at a time. There is no requirement that Israel has to fight as hard and as fast as they are doing. 

For example most of the world - including the US - is supporting a pause for humanitarian aid to go into Gaza. What is the logic behind not doing that? Are you going to say that because Hamas attacked on October 7th there can't be any humanitarian aid now? 

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You seem to be subscribing to the belief that in a fight the person who punches first isn't responsible for the fight because they're weaker than the person they punched. To which I call bullshit. 

See, this is why it's so weird that you say being reductive is wrong:

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's what you tell misbehaving children. War is more complicated than that. 

You're doing the same thing! You're reducing a very complicated conflict into a fist fight between two people. You don't get to have it both ways. If you want to use your silly reductive argument back at you, the second person fighting would be pretty wrong to pull a gun out and repeatedly shoot that first person along with several other bystanders in the area. Even if that first person went and hid in a store. 

Again, I'll state my thesis: Israel is doing itself major harm by carrying out the war the way it is doing and it is not likely to achieve its long term goals in the region by doing it this way. If Israel is interested in removing Gaza as a terrorist threat vector to Israel the primary goal must be stabilizing the area, removing both the immediate radical organizations AND removing the generators of those radicalizations. Massive civilian casualties defeats all of those things - most importantly, it makes it exceedingly difficult to get any other Arab or Muslim countries on board with helping out the administration and work afterwards - not to mention getting the help of actual Palestinians. It's not even clear the major bombing campaign is doing a whole lot to remove the actual military threat; we have no idea because we get absolutely no information about the targets, military power or logistical support being gone after. So who knows! That's not that weird in war, mind you - but it does mean that assuming Israel is doing a good job blowing Hamas up is very much that, an assumption. 

If Israel is going to succeed in the future in Gaza in making it a place that is not a major haven of terrorist attacks, it will need to enlist local Gazans. It will need broad support from the Arab world. It will need non-military allies. It is, as @Liffguard said above, needing to be courageously restrained. If it does not do this - and there are no signs that it is - then it has a number of choices on how to handle Gaza, but none of them are particularly moral. 

[fionwe1987]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Exactly. It's like the victims in Israel are already a distant memory despite there still are hundreds of hostages and Hamas is still launching rockets. 

Dude, stop making shit up.

You said "And I hate to break your heart, when you start a war you don't get to play the victim card,". to which I replied that Hamas started the war, but the people "playing the victim card" are the civilians of Gaza.

Why the fuck would I refer to Israeli victims in this context? I think I was correct that you were referring to Gazans in your sentence. Not mentioning Israeli victims here is not a sign that they're a distant memory. They just aren't relevant to the conversation you started about Gaza's civilian victims. 

Yeesh. 

[Ran]

Some good news: an IDF hostage was recovered by the IDF, is in good health, and has been reunited with her family.

[IFR]

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Exactly. It's like the victims in Israel are already a distant memory despite there still are hundreds of hostages and Hamas is still launching rockets.

I don't think anyone here will forget that tragedy. It was one of the single biggest atrocities against the Jewish people since the Holocaust. It's a major incident, and an absolutely appalling act.

Hamas is clearly responsible for that act. Furthermore, they are also orchestrating the deaths of their own people in the thousands - they want exactly what is occurring, to occur. That is on Hamas.

And Israel is playing right into their hands. I think the frustration lies here.

The death of thousands of Palestinians by Israelis would not happen without the willing involvement of Israel. Hamas has played their part, and Israel is playing their part too.

One questions whether the only possible way to deal with Hamas is to kill thousands of innocent people, and maybe even commit a campaign of genocide. Hamas cannot control Israel in this. Only Israel can make this decision. And so far it appears that the loss of thousands of innocent lives is acceptable in their response. Hamas is not forcing this decision on Israel. Israel is choosing this action.

And many people object that it is the right response.

Edited October 30, 2023 by IFR

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Didn't they tell all civilians to leave North Gaza?

They did! They also then bombed several areas in South Gaza. Including the border crossing where they're bringing in humanitarian aid.

I think it's more reasonable to say that Israel is going to treat every single person in Northern Gaza as a combatant or terrorist sympathizer, which is to say they'll treat any person they find as a legitimate military target. Which, ya know, is definitely less safe than going south and being occasionally bombed, but it is not particularly safe. 

[fionwe1987]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

For example most of the world - including the US - is supporting a pause for humanitarian aid to go into Gaza. What is the logic behind not doing that? Are you going to say that because Hamas attacked on October 7th there can't be any humanitarian aid now? 

He's saying that because Hamas started this, the people of Gaza "cannot play the victim card". Since they're not really victims, it follows that they cannot be given humanitarian aid, either. They are, unlike other humans, collectively responsible for Hamas's action, you see. So why pause the important work of "ending Hamas for all time" to pretend these people matter? They're human animals anyway. 

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Liffguard said:

Now, strictly speaking Israel is not technically engaging in strategic bombing. Technically they're aiming at supposedly tactical targets. However, I'd say that the sheer volume of ordnance into that small an area amounts to a similar effect. It will harden will to resist, whilst inflicting unimaginable suffering in the meantime.

It does have a similar effect, but this is not by accident and it's not because the area is small. It's because Hamas has deliberately positioned its military assets right next to or underneath civilian installations. This is against the Geneva Conventions, but Hamas doesn't care and they won't let people leave these places. It's a despicable way of waging war, but it seems to be working for them in that a substantial fraction of nations is now calling for a ceasefire.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Altherion said:

It does have a similar effect, but this is not by accident and it's not because the area is small. It's because Hamas has deliberately positioned its military assets right next to or underneath civilian installations. This is against the Geneva Conventions, but Hamas doesn't care and they won't let people leave these places. It's a despicable way of waging war, but it seems to be working for them in that a substantial fraction of nations is now calling for a ceasefire.

Here's a weird paradoxical thing - doing a ceasefire (or at least cessation of attacks in an area) would be strategically massively beneficial to Israel and deny Hamas one of the most important things that they have left - actual worldwide support.

[kissdbyfire]

19 minutes ago, Ran said:

Something like 125000 Israelis are internally displaced from their homes, as well, because of the war and Hamas's attacks.

That is terrible. We can at least be grateful they are not being deprived of basic necessities like food, water, electricity, and that, despite the terrorists’ continued attempts, they’re not under constant bombing.

[Altherion]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Here's a weird paradoxical thing - doing a ceasefire (or at least cessation of attacks in an area) would be strategically massively beneficial to Israel and deny Hamas one of the most important things that they have left - actual worldwide support.

That seems like a non sequitur to me. How would a ceasefire deprive Hamas of support? The people supporting them now would just start saying that Gaza has been punished enough and there should be no resumption of hostilities and so on and so forth. In the best case for Israel, it would give Hamas time to rearm and would take us further from the time of the October attacks.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

50 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

This obscures more than it clarifies. We're not talking about a fight between two individuals.

We are talking about a fight between two groups. And actually more now that Hezbollah and Iran seem interested. 

45 minutes ago, Ran said:

Something like 125000 Israelis are internally displaced from their homes, as well, because of the war and Hamas's attacks.

Most people here probably don't care.

44 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Not really. The imminent threat from Hamas is done, right now. There is absolutely no sign that Hamas has the capability to do anything more than launch a few dozen rockets at a time. There is no requirement that Israel has to fight as hard and as fast as they are doing. 

Their worry is Hamas won't be defeated and will eventually try and attack them again in the future and that fear is legitimate. 

Quote

For example most of the world - including the US - is supporting a pause for humanitarian aid to go into Gaza. What is the logic behind not doing that? Are you going to say that because Hamas attacked on October 7th there can't be any humanitarian aid now? 

I've said there should be, it just needs to be done in away in which Hamas can't steal it all, and as I've mentioned before, the reporting largely indicates Hamas has months worth of food, water and gas. Why aren't they helping their own people?

Quote

You're doing the same thing! You're reducing a very complicated conflict into a fist fight between two people. You don't get to have it both ways. If you want to use your silly reductive argument back at you, the second person fighting would be pretty wrong to pull a gun out and repeatedly shoot that first person along with several other bystanders in the area. Even if that first person went and hid in a store. 

That would make more sense if the situation wasn't the person who shot first then grabbed a kid to hide behind while they kept firing. If you're the person on the other end of that you have only bad choices.

48 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

You said "And I hate to break your heart, when you start a war you don't get to play the victim card,". to which I replied that Hamas started the war, but the people "playing the victim card" are the civilians of Gaza.

Hamas governs Gaza and started this so yeah, they do deserve the most blame. 

Quote

Why the fuck would I refer to Israeli victims in this context? I think I was correct that you were referring to Gazans in your sentence. Not mentioning Israeli victims here is not a sign that they're a distant memory. They just aren't relevant to the conversation you started about Gaza's civilian victims. 

I've been talking about civilian victims on both sides. Only focusing on one side is why these conversations always fail and in these threads the conversation has been fairly one sided hence why I feel the need to remind people how we got here.

53 minutes ago, IFR said:

And Israel is playing right into their hands. I think the frustration lies here.

The death of thousands of Palestinians by Israelis would not happen without the willing involvement of Israel. Hamas has played their part, and Israel is playing their part too.

One questions whether the only possible way to deal with Hamas is to kill thousands of innocent people, and maybe even commit a campaign of genocide. Hamas cannot control Israel in this. Only Israel can make this decision. And so far it appears that the loss of thousands of innocent lives is acceptable in their response. Hamas is not forcing this decision on Israel. Israel is choosing this action.

And many people object that it is the right response.

I think everyone knew Israel was going to respond with a heavy hand. The question is could they have been more gentle? I really don't think they could, excluding obvious instances in which they intentionally and/or wrongfully targeted civilians which should be condemned. Their view is they cannot be safe with Hamas existing in Gaza anymore which is reasonable, however, Hamas fight unconventionally and hides among the people they should be protecting to do so. That would create a problem for any country set out to destroy a terrorist organization that openly wants to kill them and like you, just on the heels of the worst attack Israel has ever faced. I think people do forget that last part and would probably want their country to act swiftly it happened to them. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Altherion said:

That seems like a non sequitur to me. How would a ceasefire deprive Hamas of support?

It is much harder for Qatar to justify keeping Hamas leaders around if Israel is showing major restraint and trying to save civilians. It is much harder for governments like Saudi Arabia to reasonably state that they condemn Israel's killing of civilians when it's not happening. 

Just now, Altherion said:

The people supporting them now would just start saying that Gaza has been punished enough and there should be no resumption of hostilities and so on and so forth. In the best case for Israel, it would give Hamas time to rearm and would take us further from the time of the October attacks.

Rearm? Are you thinking that Israel is stopping the mighty Hamas war factories from pumping out T34s or something like that? 

Hamas used almost 4 years of military capability in one attack. They have small arms, some small explosives and IEDs, and a few antitank munitions. They have no anti-air capability, no ECW capability to speak of, nothing like any kind of heavy vehicles or aircraft, etc. And they are heavily blockaded at this point - far more so than they were previously. How do you think they're going to rearm? 

This isn't like Iraq or Afghanistan with several hundred miles of borders with neighboring countries that are riddled with corruption and pro-terrorist forces. This is an area smaller than most US metropolitan areas that has three hard borders, a sea border and more surveillance per inch than London. There is very little in terms of armament that Hamas needs or could particularly use that they do not already have. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Their worry is Hamas won't be defeated and will eventually try and attack them again in the future and that fear is legitimate. 

And you think denying humanitarian aid will mean Hamas gets defeated, but not doing it means...what? They'll escape? They'll be a massive defensive force? Show your work here - why is it crucial that Israel kills 8000 civilians right now? Why is it crucial that they hit individual homes of Hamas members with bombs right this instant? 

Are you really believing that if Israel does not bomb every single Hamas target that it knows about that they cannot defeat Hamas? 

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

I've said there should be, it just needs to be done in away in which Hamas can't steal it all, and as I've mentioned before, the reporting largely indicates Hamas has months worth of food, water and gas. Why aren't they helping their own people?

Because they're evil fuckers! So what? We've already established that! 

You help the people because you can help save lives. That should be reason enough to do it. That you can do that AND take the wind out the sails of propaganda for Hamas AND build up relationships with other powers in the region that you'll need in order to make it peaceful for a long period of time AND it doesn't particularly degrade your military power should be more than enough reason - but really, do you need much of a reason to save lives?

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

That would make more sense if the situation wasn't the person who shot first then grabbed a kid to hide behind while they kept firing. If you're the person on the other end of that you have only bad choices.

Again, it's a stupid reductive comparison that does nothing any favors. I'm not really interested in arguing about what shitty analogy is less shitty. My point is that you reducing it to this kind of thing is also what you said is not a good thing to do. 

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

I think everyone knew Israel was going to respond with a heavy hand. The question is could they have been more gentle? I really don't think they could, excluding obvious instances in which they intentionally and/or wrongfully targeted civilians which should be condemned.

They cut off food and water to 2.2 million people for no discernible military gain. They've shut the borders for anyone fleeing. They've not allowed in any humanitarian aid for weeks and then let in 1/15th of the necessary aid for survival. They've dropped bombs on refugee camps, near hospitals and on houses - as far as I can tell, in order to kill one target. And that's per their statements!

They could have been significantly more gentle. There is no reason they need to use a JDAM to kill one person at home who isn't firing on your forces. ESPECIALLY if that means that you're likely to kill 30 other civilians in the process.

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Their view is they cannot be safe with Hamas existing in Gaza anymore which is reasonable, however, Hamas fight unconventionally and hides among the people they should be protecting to do so. That would create a problem for any country set out to destroy a terrorist organization that openly wants to kill them and like you, just on the heels of the worst attack Israel has ever faced. I think people do forget that last part and would probably want their country to act swiftly it happened to them. 

Someone upthread pointed out a very similar position that India took that they deliberately did not do that thing. I don't think it's as cut and dried as you make it out to be. Especially given the amount of protests that are happening in Israel about this. 

[Zorral]

Again, why do you insist nobody cares about Israel, the Israeli hostages, and the Israeli people, except, evidently bibi&cohorts,, which again again again, quoting and citing Israelis who love Israel, and professional historians, students, journalists, etc. who are proudly of Jewish heritage, who have spent years on the grounds and the areas and the region, which are being argued over here -- why do you ignore those links, references and citation -- want a cease-fire, think these actions by bibi&etc. are very bad for Israel -- and the world?

Instead the relentless, unceasing lashing out that those who post these citations and links and quotes are accused of hating Israel and Jews, and support Hamas  That's just insane. 

 

[fionwe1987]

The contours of this debate, in these threads, is that one side is saying civilian deaths on either side of the border are sickening and deplorable, and the other side is saying the deaths in Gaza are inevitable, and minimizing those deaths, while insisting that only the Israeli loss of life be acknowledged.

There is no one here saying October 7 was ok, justified, or acceptable. It's contemptible to keep inventing this stuff to distract from loss of life that is continuing. 

[IFR]

43 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Most people here probably don't care.

I know this is a heated debate and it feels like a lot of people are banding against you, but I hope you will accept that I ask this as an earnest question.

Why do you think most people here don't care? My own perception is that while indeed the displacement of Israelis is a pressing concern that deserves attention, right now people in Gaza are dying by the thousands, and so this would dominate the topic. It doesn't take away from the horror of the situation the Jewish people are going through. They should be able to live their lives in peace, without fear of murder and displacement.

But so should the people of Gaza who are not members of Hamas, and are essentially trapped in this war between Hamas and the government of Israel. You have two groups of innocent people - the citizens of Israel and the citizens of Palestine - who are enduring atrocities. The focus of conversation is on the people of Palestine because they are actively being butchered as we speak, which will naturally be a focus of discussion.

51 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think everyone knew Israel was going to respond with a heavy hand. The question is could they have been more gentle? I really don't think they could, excluding obvious instances in which they intentionally and/or wrongfully targeted civilians which should be condemned. Their view is they cannot be safe with Hamas existing in Gaza anymore which is reasonable, however, Hamas fight unconventionally and hides among the people they should be protecting to do so. That would create a problem for any country set out to destroy a terrorist organization that openly wants to kill them and like you, just on the heels of the worst attack Israel has ever faced. I think people do forget that last part and would probably want their country to act swiftly it happened to them.

I accept your view in this. I don't think you want the death of Palestinians, but that you believe it's an unfortunate necessary measure in securing the future safety of Israel.

Can you accept that people here disagree with this assessment, and do so in good faith and still believe that Jewish lives matter and that the actions of Hamas are a complete atrocity?