Israel - Hamas war VIII

[Craving Peaches]

The BBC said there was no consensus on what caused the blast, and I'm not sure if there ever will be unless more evidence comes to light or someone owes up to it (which whomever did it would never do).

[Ran]

9 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

The BBC said there was no consensus on what caused the blast

The fact that the BBC notes photos of Gaza's Explosive Ordinance Disposal team probing the crater site, and then the later Hamas claim that there are no remains, that the rocket must have "dissolved like salt in the sea", with an experience UN weapons inspector saying that in all his years he's never seen an explosion site without physical evidence...

It's obvious that it was a Gazan rocket, and they carried away the evidence that would have shown it. 

It was obviously not intentional, but still, it was clearly more useful for propaganda to insist it was Israeli rather than admit that it was a disaster they caused.

Edited November 6, 2023 by Ran

[Craving Peaches]

From BBC verify:

Quote

Where do the Gaza death figures come from?

The ongoing death toll in Gaza is released by the enclave's health ministry, which is run by Hamas.

The ministry says that when a death occurs as a result of an Israeli strike or attack, a hospital registers the details into a computer. The details logged include full name, age, ID number and sex.

This information is transferred daily from individual hospitals into a central computer system and compiled by the ministry. Once processed, the data is provided to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS).

The PCBS told the BBC the figures only cover those who have died in hospital - it does not account for those killed under buildings or who cannot be identified.

A specific cause of death is normally logged but this is currently not happening due to the extremely high numbers being processed, PCBS president Ola Awak-Shakshir told the BBC.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has said that “any information provided by a terrorist organisation should be viewed with caution”.

But World Health Organization spokesman Richard Brennan said last week he believed the figures were trustworthy, adding: “We’re confident that the information management systems that the ministry of health has put in place over the years stand up to analysis. The data over the years has been quite solid.”

 

[GrimTuesday]

2 hours ago, Ran said:

I read it, but the time she puts "terrorist" in quotes when anyone familiar with the PLO's modus operandi in the 70s included mass attacks against civilians knows they were, at the time, a terrorist organization, also caught my eye.

I think anyone who has convinced themselves of a one-state solution, whether a "democratic decolonized state" or a "binational state", is rather fooling themselves -- and also, for the most part, pretty much in the tank for Palestine.

There's one kind of huge reason a one-state solution will not take place: nuclear weapons, and the fact that Israel has them. I suspect this is a major reason why the US continues to push for a two-state solution, because a Muslim-majority nation where people affiliated with Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, etc. will likely have some governmental and military role is just a non-starter.

Of course those who are in favor of a single state are "in the tank for Palestine" because that is the side that doesn't have a state and what would be a theoretical  Palestinian state is so fragmented (which was a purposeful strategy on the part of Israel) that it would render it infeasible.

Israel is welcome to give up their nukes, just as South Africa did, and in that case, it would be equally as motivated by racism. The sheer amount of Islamophobia and anti-arab racism that just goes completely unexamined is so fucking gross. The vast majority of Muslims, just like people of every other race and religion, just want to live good lives of dignity, they're not some gang of genocidal psychos hellbent on killing Jews any more so than white Christians, and the reality is that in many cases, those who are like that are the direct result of American/western foreign policy that sought to empower the most radical/religious fundamentalist groups because they were opposed to communism during the cold war, and now those chickens have come home to roost.

[Ran]

12 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Israel is welcome to give up their nukes

Yeah, no, not with Iran being a nuclear power and Syria having insane chemical weapon capacity. South Africa's nuclear weapon program was calculated to give leverage in international diplomacy, not to counter existential threats.

12 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

they're not some gang of genocidal psychos hellbent on killing Jews

PIJ and Hamas are indeed hell-bent on killing Jews. October 7th had provided ample evidence.

They and their ilk, and the influence they hold among Palestinians, is why a one-state solution won't happen.

[Kalbear]

I would have thought it was abundantly obvious with what has happened to Ukraine (and what has not happened with Russia and North Korea) that giving up your nukes is a very, very stupid idea for any country. 

23 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

and the reality is that in many cases, those who are like that are the direct result of American/western foreign policy that sought to empower the most radical/religious fundamentalist groups because they were opposed to communism during the cold war, and now those chickens have come home to roost.

Shockingly those same people are not particularly interested in letting said chickens roost, and they have the actual power. The argument about Palestinian rage being justified or not isn't that useful. It's satisfying, perhaps, but not very useful, especially when you're trying to get a solution to people dying in the thousands. 

[Craving Peaches]

If the figures are reliable as indicated by the WHO, then 0.5% of the total population of Gaza has been killed in a month.

[Bael's Bastard]

Families of the hostages continue to oppose letting aid into Gaza while their families remain hostage, not to mention having no access to the Red Cross or any aid org.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/we-feel-choked-by-the-sadness-hostages-loved-ones-mark-30-days-with-knesset-rally/

[kissdbyfire]

As with any group, not everyone thinks the same way. Plenty of families favour concessions and even an all for all swap to get their loved ones back. 

 

Quote

Relatives of Israeli hostages held by Hamas in Gaza are calling on Benjamin Netanyahu to make significant concessions to secure the freedom of their loved ones.

Quote

Some relatives said they favoured a deal that might involve the release of all Palestinian prisoners held in Israel, a demand repeatedly made by Hamas. Others simply spoke of significant concessions.

 

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

So...your rebuttal to him saying that one way that Palestinians could deal with these sort of thing is having their own country and forgetting some of these bad things is that...the things are happening?

Again, don't get the logic here. If you're against Israel committing atrocities against a population they occupy and control, one real easy solution would be to not have Israel occupy and control that population

You are projecting something that isn't the issue for me at this very moment, whether or not there should be a two state solution, which could never be dealt with right at this moment.

I will again repeat for the challenged, that for me, in this particular discussion, among the many that are ongoing in this thread. at the moment the issue that can be dealt with right now. That is what I'm talking about and that you can't comprehend it is your problem -- maybe because you don't want to, or who knows.

Pausing, even halting the non-discriminate bombing of Gaza and the ongoing atrocities against the Palestinians, as well as the ongoing -- even before October 7th -- the ongoing atrocities the Israeli settlers, and military have been committing against the Palestinians in the West Bank, which atrocities are supported by the current Israeli government -- CAN BE DONE RIGHT NOW BY THE ISRAELIS.

Again-- the Israeli government can stop both the West Bank atrocities and the non-discriminate bombing of Gaza WHENEVER IT WANTS TO.  It can allow humanitarian aid and medical supplies into Gaza WHENEVER IT WANTS TO. The Israeli government can allow in journalists from around the world to disprove the number of atrocities/murders/ deaths of women and children and others WHENEVER IT WANTS TO. But it won't.

Like I said, determining a state for Palestine isn't even argument to have right now, since it would be, at best, if at all, something far in the future, after all the powers that pee on Palestine starting with Israel have their discussions.  Which state for Palestinians I am assured by so many right in this thread isn't possible.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

As with any group, not everyone thinks the same way. Plenty of families favour concessions and even an all for all swap to get their loved ones back. 

 

 

That would set a terrible precedent and unless I missed it, do we know how many of them are even still alive and what condition they're in? 

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Zorral said:

You are projecting something that isn't the issue for me at this very moment, whether or not there should be a two state solution, which could never be dealt with right at this moment.

I will again repeat for the challenged, that for me, in this particular discussion, among the many that are ongoing in this thread. at the moment the issue that can be dealt with right now. That is what I'm talking about and that you can't comprehend it is your problem -- maybe because you don't want to, or who knows.

Pausing, even halting the non-discriminate bombing of Gaza and the ongoing atrocities against the Palestinians, as well as the ongoing -- even before October 7th -- the ongoing atrocities the Israeli settlers, and military have been committing against the Palestinians in the West Bank, which atrocities are supported by the current Israeli government -- CAN BE DONE RIGHT NOW BY THE ISRAELIS.

Again-- the Israeli government can stop both the West Bank atrocities and the non-discriminate bombing of Gaza WHENEVER IT WANTS TO.  It can allow humanitarian aid and medical supplies into Gaza WHENEVER IT WANTS TO. The Israeli government can allow in journalists from around the world to disprove the number of atrocities/murders/ deaths of women and children and others WHENEVER IT WANTS TO. But it won't.

Like I said, determining a state for Palestine isn't even argument to have right now, since it would be, at best, if at all, something far in the future, after all the powers that pee on Palestine starting with Israel have their discussions.  Which state for Palestinians I am assured by so many right in this thread isn't possible.

 

I'm just responding to what you wrote and what you quoted. That's it. All this other stuff are things you didn't write and didn't respond about. It really isn't my problem per se - I don't really care if you're incomprehensible. But maybe you should? I mean, "among the many that are ongoing in this thread at the moment the issue that can be dealt with right now"? What is that sentence?

But anyway, all of the above has absolutely nothing to do with what Ran mentioned about wanting to have a Palestinian state. 

If you don't want to have that discussion about a Palestinian state...don't? Or something? For me, I don't think they're inseparable. If Israel stops attacking right now that stops deaths this instant...for a few days. It doesn't solve the immediate or the longer-term problems, and more importantly what Israel is doing right now absolutely affects what can be done later. If Israel stays as brutal as they have been there will not be a Palestinian state for decades to come, and there might not be an Israeli state either. That seems like a pretty big deal! And conversely, Palestinians may have to deal with the notion that they will not get justice for some of Israel's crimes that happened in recent times if they actually want a country of their own. That also seems like a big deal!

If you don't want to think about it and only care about the immediate deaths I can respect that viewpoint, but it's the wrong thing to do. You've got to be thinking about it early and often. You cannot build a nation or even the foundations of one after you've won the war. You need to know where you're going. Otherwise you might be killing or alienating the people you need to make that nation. 

[kissdbyfire]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That would set a terrible precedent

I know what you’re saying but can’t say I agree. Not just in this case, mind you. The whole “we don’t negotiate with terrorists!” mantra always makes me think of brains pickled in testosterone. Because I don’t think having an immutable, fixed and dogmatic rule like that is very smart.* Each situation is different, and I think they should be assessed separately. I even understand the reasoning behind it, I just don’t agree w/ it. 

ETA: *and not only it isn’t very smart, it isn’t true. Because there have been instances where there were negotiations w/ terrorists where deals were made. So it’s not like every terrorist in the world knows for a fact there won’t be any negotiations. 

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

and unless I missed it, do we know how many of them are even still alive and what condition they're in? 

I haven’t seen anything specific since the last bit of news that came out, and that was quite a few days ago. But I may have missed something. 

 

Edited November 7, 2023 by kissdbyfire

[Kalbear]

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That would set a terrible precedent and unless I missed it, do we know how many of them are even still alive and what condition they're in? 

It's not really setting a precedent, it's following one. Israel has famously done almost anything to release hostages, including at one point literally releasing 1000 prisoners in exchange for one IDF tank gunner. Whether that was the right choice then (or all the other times they've done things like that) is not entirely clear, and it's especially not clear now, but it isn't like Israel hasn't done this in the recent past with this specific administration. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

22 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I know what you’re saying but can’t say I agree. Not just in this case, mind you. The whole “we don’t negotiate with terrorists!” mantra always makes me think of brains pickled in testosterone. Because I don’t think having an immutable, fixed and dogmatic rule like that is very smart.* Each situation is different, and I think they should be assessed separately. I even understand the reasoning behind it, I just don’t agree w/ it. 

ETA: *and not only it isn’t very smart, it isn’t true. Because there have been instances where there were negotiations w/ terrorists where deals were made. So it’s not like every terrorist in the world knows for a fact there won’t be any negotiations. 

I don't agree with the concept that you never negotiate with terrorists, but this is a bit different. We've already seen a high up Hamas spokesman say they're going to keep doing this over and over, so if you make this kind of trade it will just embolden them to take more hostages in the future for leverage. Israel should demand all the hostages back in exchange for a ceasefire. Shit, I might demand them all back just so the two parties can agree to discuss a ceasefire.  

Quote

I haven’t seen anything specific since the last bit of news that came out, and that was quite a few days ago. But I may have missed something. 

That's why I suspect they're probably not all alive and those are in poor health. 

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's not really setting a precedent, it's following one. Israel has famously done almost anything to release hostages, including at one point literally releasing 1000 prisoners in exchange for one IDF tank gunner. Whether that was the right choice then (or all the other times they've done things like that) is not entirely clear, and it's especially not clear now, but it isn't like Israel hasn't done this in the recent past with this specific administration. 

Yes, I am aware of that, but again, apples and oranges. Technically it would actually be a better trade for Israel than 1 for 1,000, however, this situation is so extremely different and I don't see using the previous ones as a valid template for how to approach what happened on Oct. 7th. 

ETA: Also, sorry for not replying to your long post yet. I've got it in the multi, just need to set aside some time to properly address it. 

Edited November 7, 2023 by Tywin et al.

[Conflicting Thought]

21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's why I suspect they're probably not all alive and those are in poor health. 

like when you thought every hostage was probably dead? and then it turns out they where alive and at least the hostages that where released where in good conditions. we dont know if they are all alive but to think they are probably not is strange to me given the info we got of past actions ( in regards to the hostages)

[Bael's Bastard]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

That would set a terrible precedent and unless I missed it, do we know how many of them are even still alive and what condition they're in? 

The current head of Hamas in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, was released along with over 1000 others for Gilad Shalit in 2011. The terribleness of the precedent is already set to most Israelis.

[Bael's Bastard]

36 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

like when you thought every hostage was probably dead? and then it turns out they where alive and at least the hostages that where released where in good conditions. we dont know if they are all alive but to think they are probably not is strange to me given the info we got of past actions ( in regards to the hostages)

There is no indication how many are alive or what condition they are in as neither the Red Cross nor any other org has been permitted to see them. Perhaps most or all of them are still alive, but we don't really know, and we know that Hamas is historically just as likely to demand live Palestinian prisoners for dead Jewish bodies.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

53 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

like when you thought every hostage was probably dead? and then it turns out they where alive and at least the hostages that where released where in good conditions. we dont know if they are all alive but to think they are probably not is strange to me given the info we got of past actions ( in regards to the hostages)

I believe I said you have to presume most if not all might die. So far Hamas has released four people, two Americans and two sick Israelis who they probably couldn't care for hence they have little value. In fact, releasing them benefits Hamas more than keeping them and possibly letting them die in captivity. The one healthy Israeli was rescued, not released. 

As Bael said, we have not as far as I know seen much evidence of how they're doing. Hamas released a few videos of some hostages looking okay, but that was a while ago. I'm unaware of any proof of life for most of the hostages since then and you have to keep in mind it's not hard to make a bunch of videos early on and then claim they were more recent than they actually may be. 

25 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

The current head of Hamas in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, was released along with over 1000 others for Gilad Shalit in 2011. The terribleness of the precedent is already set to most Israelis.

I wouldn't rule out recent events changing that thinking. Why make the same mistake again? 

[Bael's Bastard]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I wouldn't rule out recent events changing that thinking. Why make the same mistake again? 

That's what I'm saying, I don't think there is going to be popular support for releasing terrorists with blood on their hands. Freeing captives is generally of utmost importance, and I understand some families support releasing any/all prisoners to get their loved ones back, but it is an impossible situation no matter what decision is made.