Israel - Hamas War XII

[Kalbear]

Also in the news today - infants found dead and decomposing in the al-nasr hospital. Video was taken Nov 27th. It's not clear what precisely killed them - whether it was that they ran out of oxygen or electricity to power various other equipment. Or when they died, precisely. It is likely that they have been dead since November 10th, when the hospital was forced to be evacuated and care staff warned that they could not get every child out. 

The hospital staff had attempted to coordinate with Israel forces who assured them that ambulances would be there to evacuate the children. Those ambulances never arrived.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/08/middleeast/babies-al-nasr-gaza-hospital-what-we-know-intl/index.html

[TrueMetis]

Remember seeing people saying the Red Cross said they would handle getting the kids out and so it was their fault, glad to see that article mentions that that's not the case.

God what a fucking evil situation.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

18 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Many polls have been posted showing that it's not accurate to say "most Palestinians support Hamas". I'll look them up in a bit. An important point that can't be left out when talking about support for Hamas in Gaza is that the population of Gaza is almost 50% younger than 18 and Hamas was elected 17 years ago. See where this is going? 

Agreed.  I’m very curious about the methodology of the polls claiming strong support among Palestinians for Hamas and its actions?  Without a general plebiscite and give the denuded accuracy of polls generally how can we trust that those “polls” (which are not general plebiscites) are in any way accurate?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

15 hours ago, Rippounet said:

They are different types of violence, and people in the West tend to fear (and loathe) the first type far more than the second, even though the second is precisely what fuels the first. Somehow, the impersonal nature of State violence/terrorism makes it better - and is far easier to defend. It often takes an insane amount of energy to expose the mechanisms of State violence, even when it is perfectly (and literally) visible.
I don't know about "worse" though. TBH, both types are abhorrent, and I don't think we should ever fall into the trap of condoning one because of the other. Ideally, the rejection of moral relativism should offer viable alternatives for the future, but sometimes things are fucked up to a point that there simply is no easy "path" to peaceful coexistence between two "sides."
Or, to put it in simple terms: sometimes, the wrong people are in charge, and there isn't much one can do about it, except vent and rage at the logic and absurdity of mutual hatred. If only we could find a way to trap the worst people on both sides behind the walls they love to build, we could let them free to indulge in their stupidity without taking the rest of the world with them.

I’ll say it again:

This is my position.  Likud and Hamas love one another.  They each feed off the violence the other group offers to increase their power over people who simply want to live their lives in peace.  

Likud and Hamas both need violence from the other group to maintain their power.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

14 hours ago, Darryk said:

"wrong" is kind of an understatement, and who made you the judge of whose suffering is worse?

Grim’s statement is an example of “the fallacy of Relative Privation”.  Implying X is not really bad because Y is so much worse.

[Altherion]

17 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Maybe its because lots of states have actually been taking action with regards to the Ukraine situation, whereas they haven't done as much to protect civilians in this case? Or the risk of the war spreading? Also, Russia would certainly veto anything re Ukraine, but maybe he thought he had a shot with USA? There are many explanations that don't involve an assumption of bad faith.

There are also lots of states who have been taking action with regards to Gaza -- even during the fighting, there is constant negotiation and trucks of aid are on standby for a lull. The risk of the war spreading is there, but so far the US has kept it under control. I just don't see this as a conflict that invites the use of bureaucratic tools last seen in 1989.

17 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Are you claiming they bribed him?

I'm not claiming anything -- I'm guessing -- and I very much doubt it was something that simple. It's more likely that they promised him diplomatic support for something else.

17 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

'Attempt at meddling'.

That is exactly what it is though. There is already a diplomatic set assembled to deal with this situation with the US being by far the largest and most powerful and the others being Israel, Egypt and Qatar (with the latter serving as an intermediary for Hamas). They're negotiating among themselves all the time and the interference of the UN is not helping.

[Zorral]

Civilians make up 61% of Gaza deaths from airstrikes, Israeli study finds
Civilian proportion of deaths is higher than that in all world conflicts in 20th century, Haaretz newspaper says

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/09/civilian-toll-israeli-airstrikes-gaza-unprecedented-killing-study

Below the text includes that two other Israeli studies concur.

Quote

 

The aerial bombing campaign by Israel in Gaza is the most indiscriminate in terms of civilian casualties in recent years, a study published by an Israeli newspaper has found. ....

.... In the first three weeks of the current operation, Swords of Iron, the civilian proportion of total deaths rose to 61%, in what Haaretz described as “unprecedented killing”. The ratio is significantly higher than the civilian toll in all the conflicts around the world during the 20th century, in which civilians accounted for about half the dead.

“The broad conclusion is that extensive killing of civilians not only contributes nothing to Israel’s security, but that it also contains the foundations for further undermining it,” Haaretz concluded. “The Gazans who will emerge from the ruins of their homes and the loss of their families will seek revenge that no security arrangements will be able to withstand.”

The study confirms an investigation 10 days ago by two other Israeli news sites, +972 Magazine and Local Call, which found Israel was deliberately targeting residential blocks to cause mass civilian casualties in the hope people would turn on their Hamas rulers. The figures will make uneasy reading for the Biden administration, which is facing global criticism and isolation for vetoing a UN security council vote for a ceasefire on Friday. ....

 

So much for the claims that the tolls on the Palestinian civilian population are inflated and are actually decreased in recent days.

As for Gaza Palestinian civilians whole hearted support for Hamas - 

https://news.stanford.edu/report/2023/12/05/palestinians-views-oct-7/#:~:text=The results also revealed a,the Palestinian Authority or Hamas.

Hamas repeatedly tried to shut this story down, but brave Palestinians still spoke out against the violent regime that has brought Gaza to its knees.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/robbed-silenced-and-betrayed-why-gazans-turned-away-from-hamas?

 

[Craving Peaches]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

That is exactly what it is though. There is already a diplomatic set assembled to deal with this situation with the US being by far the largest and most powerful and the others being Israel, Egypt and Qatar (with the latter serving as an intermediary for Hamas). They're negotiating among themselves all the time and the interference of the UN is not helping.

It can hardly be classed as meddling when it is part of his job. Just because one group is working on stuff, doesn't mean he can't also. What sort of logic is this? USA is already doing something so everyone just has to sit tight until the US 'deals' with the issue? UN should just roll over to US demands? Gueterres should just be a good American puppet?

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

I just don't see this as a conflict that invites the use of bureaucratic tools last seen in 1989.

It was used then to call for a ceasefire in the Lebanese civil war after ~150,000 people (estimated) had died over a period of ~fifteen years. This time, ~17,000 people have been reported killed in a two month period.  If the same rate of deaths continues for a year (I hope not) you will end up with 102,000 dead at least, not really factoring in starvation or disease, which is 2/3 of the number dead in the Lebanese civil war in 1/15 of the time.

It was also used when 49 Americans in Iran were taken hostage.

So I think it is perfectly appropriate to use it in this case.

[kissdbyfire]

Interesting points made by Dr. Jennifer Cassidy towards the end there.

I've said before that this Israeli government should be held to a higher standard than a nasty terrorist organisation. It's similar irt the US, it must be held to the highest standard possible since it is the world's top dog and, apparently, the only ones who can actually do something even if it is just not vetoing resolutions and/or possible sanctions to make Bibi & his goons stop. 

 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2023 by kissdbyfire

[Larry of the Lawn]

5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Grim’s statement is an example of “the fallacy of Relative Privation”.  Implying X is not really bad because Y is so much worse.

Or maybe his metric of "wrong" is simply one of quantity?  He said "an order of magnitude worse" didn't he?  1500 and 15,000?

Edited December 9, 2023 by Larry of the Lawn

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 hours ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

Or maybe his metric of "wrong" is simply one of quantity?  He said "an order of magnitude worse" didn't he?  1500 and 15,000?

That’s why I said “implied”.  The two hundred concert goers murdered by Hamas fighters for the ^crime^ of being near the border of Gaza certianly does not justify the thousands of civilians killed in IDF airstrikes.  

Both are crimes regardless of scale.  

Seeking to force a comparison of the two implies that one must be worse than the other when both… independent of the other… are awful.

The Fallacy of Relative Privation is used all the time rhetorically to imply comparisons between bad things when none should be made.  

You know like the Hitler apologists who scream that Stalin killed more people than Hitler but the allies supplied Stalin with arms.  Hitler and Stalin were both horrific human beings.  Comparing them for scale misses the point that every human life is valuable and seeking to imply X is worse than Y… because of scale of lives lost misses the point that every human life lost to warfare is tragic and worthy of mourning and anger at the fundamental injustice of the life so taken.

Edited December 9, 2023 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[Zorral]

21 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The Fallacy of Relative Privation is used all the time rhetorically to imply comparisons between bad things when none should be made.  

The progenitor of 'whataboutism' and 'bothsidesism'?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The progenitor of 'whataboutism' and 'bothsidesism'?

Pretty much.

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That’s why I said “implied”.  The two hundred concert goers murdered by Hamas fighters for the ^crime^ of being near the border of Gaza certianly does not justify the thousands of civilians killed in IDF airstrikes.  

Both are crimes regardless of scale.  

Seeking to force a comparison of the two implies that one must be worse than the other when both… independent of the other… are awful.

The Fallacy of Relative Privation is used all the time rhetorically to imply comparisons between bad things when none should be made.  

You know like the Hitler apologists who scream that Stalin killed more people than Hitler but the allies supplied Stalin with arms.  Hitler and Stalin were both horrific human beings.  Comparing them for scale misses the point that every human life is valuable and seeking to imply X is worse than Y… because of scale of lives lost misses the point that every human life lost to warfare is tragic and worthy of mourning and anger at the fundamental injustice of the life so taken.

To the bolded, absolutely not.  Read the post GT made.  There's no implication that the Oct 7 attack wasn't horrible.  The point of the post seems pretty clearly to be calling for an end to Israel 's retaliation.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

To the bolded, absolutely not.  Read the post GT made.  There's no implication that the Oct 7 attack wasn't horrible.  The point of the post seems pretty clearly to be calling for an end to Israel 's retaliation.  

Good.

[House Balstroko]

5 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Interesting points made by Dr. Jennifer Cassidy towards the end there.

I've said before that this Israeli government should be held to a higher standard than a nasty terrorist organisation. It's similar irt the US, it must be held to the highest standard possible since it is the world's top dog and, apparently, the only ones who can actually do something even if it is just not vetoing resolutions and/or possible sanctions to make Bibi & his goons stop. 

 

It’s best if the US keeps putting pressure on Israel behind the scenes. It would reflect poorly on the US if it just decided to start sanctioning Israel. 

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

The point of the post seems pretty clearly to be calling for an end to Israel 's retaliation.  

The point of what Israel is doing is not retaliation. It's to destroy Hamas once and for all so that there would be no further attacks on Israel. I would have a lot more respect for the people calling for the fighting to stop if they also called for Hamas to return all remaining hostages and surrender. The people who are calling for a ceasefire are not doing that because they're either interested in keeping Hamas around or they're naive (but useful) tools of the people and nations interested in keeping Hamas around.

[fionwe1987]

16 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The point of what Israel is doing is not retaliation. It's to destroy Hamas once and for all so that there would be no further attacks on Israel.

Would a nuclear bomb on Gaza not achieve this? Since you're able to ignore the ludicrous civilian toll and make this claim with a straight face, can you tell me if you'd support dropping a nuke there, and if not, why not? 

16 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I would have a lot more respect for the people calling for the fighting to stop if they also called for Hamas to return all remaining hostages and surrender.

I don't expect Hamas to give two figs about what I say. I do think the Israeli people are a lot more amenable to pleas for restraint and compassion than Hamas. It appears you think this isn't the case.

16 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The people who are calling for a ceasefire are not doing that because they're either interested in keeping Hamas around or they're naive (but useful) tools of the people and nations interested in keeping Hamas around.

Lovely. Such a convenient and unfalsifiable set of judgements. Sure helps you keep your head shoved deep up your ass and support tens of thousands of deaths. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

30 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The point of what Israel is doing is not retaliation. It's to destroy Hamas once and for all so that there would be no further attacks on Israel. I would have a lot more respect for the people calling for the fighting to stop if they also called for Hamas to return all remaining hostages and surrender. The people who are calling for a ceasefire are not doing that because they're either interested in keeping Hamas around or they're naive (but useful) tools of the people and nations interested in keeping Hamas around.

Well the way they've gone about it certainly isn't going to do that.  Everytime a civilian gets killed it's another opportunity to radicalize someone.  No one is calling for Hamas to surrender because we all know that is absolutely no going to happen.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

16 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

I don't expect Hamas to give two figs about what I say. I do think the Israeli people are a lot more amenable to pleas for restraint and compassion than Hamas. It appears you think this isn't the case.

But therein lies the problem. Israel should be held to a higher standard, but Hamas can't be held to none and most reasonable people I think would agree that a ceasefire in exchange for the hostages is fair. Instead Hamas wants a one sided ceasefire with no guarantee they'll give the hostages back and not attack again once they restock, so basically for a ceasefire without anything in return is doing exactly what Hamas wants and Israel isn't going to do that.  

Edited December 10, 2023 by Tywin et al.