Israel - Hamas war XIV

[kissdbyfire]

11 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

And if the side that attacks says that's their goal for you? You cannot gloss over that part. 

I’m talking about everyone involved, everyone and anyone who thinks war should always be the go-to response. I disagree w/ that, I think there are rare occasions when it is a necessary evil like WWII, but it can’t be always the only response. As I’ve said about a million times before, Hamas is a nasty terrorist organisation that must be dealt with, but the slaughter we are seeing in Gaza is also horrific. Worse, it won’t make Israel safer, but I don’t think Netanyahu really cares about the Israeli people so he will keep at it. So the military industrial complex will keep making a shit ton of money, Netanyahu will stay in power b/c “war”, and the people will continue to suffer in Israel and Gaza and the WB. 
 

ETA: and even WWII… I mean, Hitler should have been stopped long before the start of the war. 

Edited January 8 by kissdbyfire

[Conflicting Thought]

1 minute ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Sure, but most posts in these threads have heavily condemned one side while shrugging at the other, ignoring the latter started this war. 

first is not true that we shrugged at hamas attack, but also we have been telling you why we focus more in israel massacre and crimes against humanity that are going on right this second but you wont comprehend it, you dont want to or you cant do it idk. so you have to say stupid shit like the mayor thing when we have tell you multiple times in different iterations of this thread (with proof) that its almost everyone in the goverment saying that including the head of the fucking goverment, you know, the most important person in power.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I’m talking about everyone involved, everyone and anyone who thinks war should always be the go-to response.

But again, what is the reasonable response when one side attacks another and calls for their death, promising to keep attacking until their main goal is achieved? Hold their hands and try and talk? 

7 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

first is not true that we shrugged at hamas attack, 

Pretty much is. Just look at the way ethnostate and genocide is used. Hamas loudly said those are their goals, but it's never mentioned despite them being the attackers that started the war. 

[Jace, Extat]

19 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

 

 

and not see how this can be applied to israel form the perspective of palestine. israeli goverment is a terrorist one, comiting thousands of atrocities, killing thousands of kids, women and men mayority civilian for decades, illigaly arresting children and adults, etc, etc... so everything else is secondary to the  goal of taking these people out of power, including international law...that works to no? and if not what is the difference bewtween the two. like who is furthering palestinain safety? 

edit: meant to quote jace

That rebuttal might fly if Hamas were not a jihadist organization. They don't care about taking care of Palestinians, they care about killing Jews.

[Rippounet]

50 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Stop. This is the bullshit argument Hamas wants you to accept

No, it's a conclusion I reached almost 15 years ago.

Or, to put it in more personal terms: about 15 years ago, I realized that the members of my family who argued that Israel was responsible for the well-being of Palestinian refugees were essentially correct, and that the "logical conclusion" of the opposite position could only be ethnic cleansing or genocide. For the simple reason that if you deny dignity to human beings, they will choose violence, and the worst kind of violence too, which leads to a self-perpetuating cycle. And since most Palestinians don't really have anywhere else to go, it followed that Israel had to choose left-wing policies for its own long-term survival - to avoid the possibility of a chain of events leading to another major regional war.

I'm not using these arguments against Israel because I'm a pacifist, I'm a pacifist because I'm "half"-Israeli. What's the "logical conclusion" of the current path? I think we already have a clear idea: Iran, or some Iranian-funded terror group, gets its hands on a nuclear weapon - or some other WMD. Or a variation of this kind of scenario, in the sense that "defensive" technology or logistics can never be full-proof and Israel will never manage to fully protect itself from the hatred of its neighbors - to argue that this should be its course of action borders on the insane. And even if the walls got high enough and the surveillance efficient enough, who the fuck would want to live in a gated community while their neighbors struggled to have a decent life, with actual opportunity? What kind of a bastard would you have to be to enjoy your garden when your neighbors don't have enough water for their kids to drink?
Of course, if the Palestinians quietly accepted their sub-human fate of living entirely at the mercy of the Israeli state, that would not be the case. But that's precisely what I understood long ago: humans almost never accept being in an "inferior" condition. In fact, the more you demand that humans accept an inferior role or position, and the more extreme they may become. That's why to my eyes, your insistance that Hamas "started the war" is laughable ; this conflict started before either of us was born, and has grown steadily worse in the last decades.

And it might seem like I'm talking with the benefit of hindsight here, right? But the reason my father visited me in Paris last September was because I refused to go and visit him in Israel, because I knew something like October 7th would happen sooner or later, and I refused to put my son at risk. The scale of the attack was surprising, but I was surprised neither by the attack itself, nor by its barbaric nature. What we're seeing today is exactly what Israeli leftists warned against decades ago, and I have this idea that there were some who warned against this path all the way back in 1948...

But hey, we can also keep on with the "when an enemy attacks you, you destroy them" logic, and see how this ends, uh? What could possibly go wrong?

Edited January 8 by Rippounet

[Kalbear]

29 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

But again, what is the reasonable response when one side attacks another and calls for their death, promising to keep attacking until their main goal is achieved? Hold their hands and try and talk? 

That was literally what Israel did with Egypt and Jordan, which resulted in 40+ years of peace.

Israel notably did not try and take over all of Egypt. 

29 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Pretty much is. Just look at the way ethnostate and genocide is used. Hamas loudly said those are their goals, but it's never mentioned despite them being the attackers that started the war. 

It is mentioned regularly. You just appear to ignore it.

[Kalbear]

26 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

That rebuttal might fly if Hamas were not a jihadist organization. They don't care about taking care of Palestinians, they care about killing Jews.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. But let's interrogate that. Let's assume that this is accurate (it isn't, but let's assume a spherical palestinian).

What does that matter? Does what someone else wants (not can do, but wants) justify any action? 

Similarly what Israel wants is the whole area to be a Jewish state. This is the stated goal of Israel's government and has been for 25 years now. What does that statement allow others to do to Israel? 

To me this seems so absurdly reductionist and caustic. Especially the part about accepting any breaking of international laws to achieve aims. That's a very pragmatic, vigilante viewpoint and one i get, but it also should have consequences.