Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition

[whYNOT]

8 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

I guess he feels bad that he didn't rise up against the South African government back during apartheid. 

Take your identity politics elsewhere. You know less than nothing about me.

But - but - its says "South Africa"! And he has a whitey name!

"We know the type..."

That is the most blatant anti-individualism I've seen on an Oist forum. .

Edited October 27, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

8 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Did SA apartheid end, or just flip ?

Somewhat, with laws in the statute books too. "Whites" - all 7% of them - still have to carry the blame for an inept and corrupt Gvt's failures.

But don't mention that to O'ist social-activists and Wokeists.

Inverse racism is not something they can take in or want to face. They'd have to think in principles.

Racism can only go one way. I have news for them: Seeing you are unable to reason, wait until you are a minority demographic (without individual rights, of course).

Additionally, they celebrate any minority demographic, e.g. Jews, the SA whites, etc., getting the pay-back "they deserve".

Self-identifying themselves as vindictive and frightened tribalists like the crowds adulating the Hamas killers.

Edited October 27, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

The bad news for a peaceful transition to self-rule. Most Palestinians feel Hamas represents them.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20089/hamas-represent-palestinians

Edited October 27, 2023 by whYNOT

[stansfield123]

17 hours ago, Eiuol said:

There is a bit of a border with Egypt, but it is largely Israeli control.

How is Israel in control of the Egypt-Gaza border? Telepathically? Because there isn't a single Israeli on that border. Not on the Egyptian side, and obviously not on the Gaza side (because Gaza is run by Hamas, and Hamas murders Israelis on sight).

 

[Eiuol]

20 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Take your identity politics elsewhere. You know less than nothing about me.

It's a judgment from things you said in the past about yourself, but if I'm mistaken about your own personal history about rising up, then please correct me. But the point is that failure to rise up isn't some kind of moral failure necessarily, and if you didn't rise up, then you aren't necessarily morally at fault either. The same with many civilians in Gaza. There's nothing even insulting in what I said unless you take it as necessarily bad for not rising up under oppression. 

11 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

How is Israel in control of the Egypt-Gaza border?

The 'it' was referring to the entirety of Gaza borders, not specifically the Egypt-Gaza border. The point is that essentially, Gaza is permanently under siege. It's not hugely different from military occupation, but the principle I'm working with is that it isn't as if one side is blocked off while the other side has freedom of movement. And even then, that doesn't change the fact about the Israel-Gaza border itself lacking any freedom of movement. The most you can say is that movement needs to be restricted because of terrorists in Gaza - which isn't a pro liberty response to terrorism (unless it were limited to a very specific amount of time for a specific reason). 

 

[stansfield123]

17 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 The most you can say is that movement needs to be restricted because of terrorists in Gaza - which isn't a pro liberty response to terrorism

You don't think restricting the movement of people who murder children and send the pictures of the corpses to family members ... a pro liberty measure?

What about restricting the movements of people who rape and murder young women, and then load their naked bodies onto pickup trucks, and parade them around town in a victory celebration? Do you not think restricting the movements of such people is pro-liberty?

What is pro-liberty, then? Is letting these sub-humans run free pro-liberty? Is that your concept of liberty?

 

[Eiuol]

58 minutes ago, stansfield123 said:

You don't think restricting the movement of people who murder children and send the pictures of the corpses to family members ... a pro liberty measure?

What about restricting the movements of people who rape and murder young women, and then load their naked bodies onto pickup trucks, and parade them around town in a victory celebration? Do you not think restricting the movements of such people is pro-liberty?

What is pro-liberty, then? Is letting these sub-humans run free pro-liberty? Is that your concept of liberty?

 

This would be equivalent to saying all people living in Gaza are terrorists. I even mentioned terrorists in Gaza, as opposed to non-terrorists in Gaza. Curtailing the liberties of people who have not violated rights in order to stop the people who have violated rights is not a proper response. 

Restricting movements because of terrorism implies I'm talking about the people who are not terrorists. This might be more like restricting movement on the Mexico US border because of cartels in Mexico. It wouldn't be proper to limit the movement of all Mexicans across the US border as if presuming that they are all guilty until proven innocent. But the extent of Israeli control over their border with Gaza is far more expansive than that even. 

Take it as a given that I already agree that terrorists deserve to be annihilated - I'm disagreeing about specific methods. 

[Easy Truth]

On 10/27/2023 at 7:18 AM, stansfield123 said:

Because there isn't a single Israeli on that border. Not on the Egyptian side, and obviously not on the Gaza side (because Gaza is run by Hamas, and Hamas murders Israelis on sight).

How does one determine the truth about this? Because if in fact, ALL people in Gaza are in fact murderous criminals, then yes, they should be in a prison, maybe some should be killed. But no society is completely full of psychopaths.

One can reasonably make the case that Gaza has a society in which its leadership is promoting its citizens to kill Israeli people. Based on that threat Israel has a right to use force against them. Does this in fact justify collective punishment?

What you say (that Gaza is under the control of Hamas) seems to be correct but there is a nuance:

"Israeli-Egyptian blockade that has been in place since 2007. This blockade has resulted in severe restrictions on the movement of people and goods in and out of Gaza, making it difficult for residents to access basic necessities and opportunities. "

"it is surrounded by state of the art electronic surveillance system set up and controlled by Israel. The sea is controlled by Israel. The border crossings are all controlled by Israel who dictates what goes in and out (people and goods). There is one border crossing into Egypt that has been shut down since 2013 and opened very few times since then. Israel controls everything land, air and sea, borders are patrolled by heavy armored vehicles and tanks. At some point baby milk and other goods were forbidden to enter Gaza by Israel"

If true, this is in fact provocation of a population. But is this state of affairs what created murderers? Did Hamas create the frustration inside Gaza? Hamas was preferred by the Israeli government in order to weaken the PLO. So, it seems like some convoluted errors in policy have created such an explosive situation.

"That is a hard if not impossible balance to strike year after year, especially as Gaza's internal pressures mount. Its 2 million inhabitants are packed into an area roughly the size of Philadelphia, 80 percent of them impoverished and 46 percent unemployed. Some 108,000 cubic meters of untreated sewage flow daily from the Gaza Strip into the Mediterranean Sea, and potable water can be hard to come by.

Against this backdrop and absent any path to something better for Gazans, no military strategy to contain the violence can succeed in the long run. Without a safety valve, Gaza was bound to explode."

"once all the killing is done, Israel will have to do something even harder if it's to have any hope of preventing the next war and the one after that: It will need to rebuild Gaza into something better than it was. That means ensuring Gaza's inhabitants have a chance at economic prosperity, potentially even at the risk of loosening the blockade. That means ensuring Gaza's inhabitants have political options apart from Hamas and the corrupt and pliant Palestinian Authority. And it means rebuilding the social fabric of Gaza, which will likely be even more tattered after what could be a devastating war that could leave the enclave that much more hostile to Israel."

This ends up putting the ultimate solution or responsibility in the hands of Israel. It is not altruistic but rather ... practical.

https://www.rand.org/blog/2023/the-inevitable-ongoing-failure-of-israels-gaza-strategy.html

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Gaza-called-the-largest-open-air-prison-and-when-did-you-first-hear-this-phrase

[stansfield123]

17 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

How does one determine the truth about this?

The usual methods. I'll just mention the most basic one: LOOKING. Literally. With your eyes.

For example: the IDF held a press conference the other day, alleging that there is a Hamas tunnel system under al Shifa Hospital, the largest medical center in Gaza, used to house its fighters, weaponry, and logistics.

There is a UN presence in Gaza. There are UN representatives, on the ground. With eyes. Not just eyes. They have phones, with cameras on them. All they would have to do, to establish the truth about the Israeli claim, is look. Just. Simply. Look.

The UN hasn't looked. They have no plans to look. You can use this fact to determine the truth not just about the tunnels under al Shifa hospital, but about the role the UN is playing in this conflict. If you want to.

I just equipped you with everything you need to know, to answer this question: Does the IDF have the legal right, under the laws or war, to tell civilians to evacuate al Shifa hospital, and then level it? So go ahead. Answer the question, as honestly as you can, given the information available to you. I'm curious. Do you have this ability to reason honestly? If you do, then there you go: you know how to determine the truth not just about this, but about anything. If you don't ... well then I can't begin to tell you.

 

Edited October 29, 2023 by stansfield123

[stansfield123]

19 hours ago, Eiuol said:

This would be equivalent to saying all people living in Gaza are terrorists.

I disagree. Simple question:

If a nation is attacked or threatened from outside one of its borders, does that nation have the right to close that border until the threat ends? If the answer is yes, then we're in agreement: Israel has the right to close the border with Gaza.

If the answer is no, then the conversation is over. It went on too long as it is.

[Eiuol]

10 minutes ago, stansfield123 said:

I disagree. Simple question:

If a nation is attacked or threatened from outside one of its borders, does that nation have the right to close that border until the threat ends? If the answer is yes, then we're in agreement: Israel has the right to close the border with Gaza.

If the answer is no, then the conversation is over. It went on too long as it is.

I already mentioned for a specific time and for a specific reason would be fine. Broadly defined "until the threat ends" is vague and unclear, especially when the threat is from a specific group within a region, rather than the government of a country. What would count as the threat being over? Do you mean the destruction of Hamas? When Hamas is destroyed, is there going to be freedom of movement along the border? Or do you mean a threat bigger and larger than Hamas? 

30 minutes ago, stansfield123 said:

I'll just mention the most basic one: LOOKING. Literally. With your eyes.

I think he was talking about how you would determine the truth of somebody being a threat that wants to murder Israelis on sight. Okay, members of Hamas. But it seems like "existing in Gaza" is the standard of being a threat.

[stansfield123]

On 10/29/2023 at 7:03 PM, Eiuol said:

 "until the threat ends" is vague and unclear

That's okay, I'm happy to make it clear exactly when the threat ends. It's when these four conditions are met:

1. The government of Gaza (Hamas) surrenders unconditionally. All the war criminals are arrested and tried. Alternatively, all fighters in Gaza are dead, and there is no one left who is willing to pick up arms against Israel.

2. A new government is formed in Gaza, and this government takes full control of the territory. Meaning, they have the will and the ability to arrest or kill anyone who threatens Israel.

3. The new government of Gaza renounces the current government's stated goal of wiping out Israel, renounces terrorism, and signs a permanent peace agreement with Israel, on Israel's terms. These terms may include guarantees that Gaza's government, media organizations and education system remain neutral or friendly towards Israel. There is no further incitement to terror, war, or any other form of hostility towards Israel, in any of these venues.

4. A number of years pass, during which the arrangement runs smoothly: Gaza remains peaceful towards Israel, there are no major terrorist incidents, Gaza's media and education systems are successfully reformed and look like the media and education system of any secular, peaceful democracy. This will take a long time. A whole generation of Gazans were brought up by the Hamas regime, it's safe to assume that it will take another generation, for the effects of that to diminish.

It's when those conditions are met that the threat Gaza poses to Israel ends. Not before. Clear enough? I'm happy to clarify further.

Edited October 30, 2023 by stansfield123

[Eiuol]

I don't see how if 1 occurs, it is therefore okay to maintain a siege over that region. I can see some amount of policing, to make sure Hamas remains destroyed, but anyone remaining would not be a threat. You could make the case for 2 and maybe 3, since I don't even imagine that needs to last longer than six months. But 4 being a requirement to withdraw the siege sounds like a bad idea. Having further stipulations that there must be no incident or conflict while simultaneously maintaining strict border control and constant observation like a police state, is pretty hypocritical. A path to freedom does not include treating a populace as already guilty or inclined towards guilt. 

If I personally were living in Gaza, and I wanted Hamas out, then they are removed, but I still need to live life under siege, my life would feel forcibly constrained when I did nothing wrong. That would be a justified grievance. The worst part is that many people are not clearheaded when it comes to grievances, meaning that I would expect more terrorists groups to spring up anyway. 

 

[whYNOT]

That burning question going unasked by journalists: "How many of those "at least 8000" killed were civilians?"

Assuming that figure is factual.

Every news channel parrots the same figures without analysis.

The inference to the gullible non-thinkers, the IDF is so inept and-or "genocidal" that few/no terrorists were killed. Mainly civilians. They couldn't find Hamas operatives, anywhere...

But only Hamas terrorists were its stated objective.

I'll venture a certainty, the terrorist casualties have been (at minimum) 6-7000 of that number. The IDF have the Intel, surveillance and observers to be sure of Hamas locations and movements. Their surface to surface and air-ground missiles are top notch and are pinpoint accurate.

Past conflict experience showed how the Gazan deaths had been fabricated (by Palestine media and medics too) by an order of magnitude, and were always blindly accepted in the msm.

The civilian deaths therefore are likely little more than a thousand, so far.

Where that leaves the vicious illogic of "3400 children deaths" is as a "blood libel" against Jews/Zionists calculated to inflame hatred and assaults against millions of Jews in the world as well as isolate Israel. 

With lies and appeals to emotion, Hamas/Gaza has again won for itself the moral high ground among a disturbingly large number of the world. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiDnYStyaCCAxUPVkEAHQAtC10QvOMEKAB6BAgLEAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fnews%2Fisrael-war-hamas-says-gaza-death-toll-8000-idf-ground-troops%2F&usg=AOvVaw3YFPoqX6QEG-4zDaPZrRpB&opi=89978449

 

Edited October 31, 2023 by whYNOT

[Eiuol]

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I'll venture a certainty, the terrorist casualties have been (at minimum) 6-7000 of that number.

You mean you fabricated a number that sounded good. Of course numbers need to be verified, that in fact 8000 civilians were killed, but what are you even trying to do by picking whatever number you wanted? 

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The IDF have the Intel, surveillance and observers to be sure of Hamas locations and movements. Their surface to surface and air-ground missiles are top notch and are pinpoint accurate.

Meaning that if in fact it was 8000 civilians, they probably targeted civilians specifically. But again, this depends on the truth of how many actually died. I'm hoping that Israel didn't do something like that, kill 8000 civilians on purpose, but just because I am more on the side of Israel in terms of moral judgment does not mean Israel couldn't possibly do something immoral.

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The civilian deaths therefore are likely little more than a thousand, so far.

What is the IDF's estimate? I don't see any estimate at all from what I've been looking at. 

[whYNOT]

23 hours ago, Eiuol said:

You mean you fabricated a number that sounded good. Of course numbers need to be verified, that in fact 8000 civilians were killed, but what are you even trying to do by picking whatever number you wanted? 

Meaning that if in fact it was 8000 civilians, they probably targeted civilians specifically. But again, this depends on the truth of how many actually died. I'm hoping that Israel didn't do something like that, kill 8000 civilians on purpose, but just because I am more on the side of Israel in terms of moral judgment does not mean Israel couldn't possibly do something immoral.

What is the IDF's estimate? I don't see any estimate at all from what I've been looking at. 

Try to stay with the program; my estimate was not meant to be accurate. A rough device to reveal the Hamas b.s.

The claim:

8000 "civilians" killed <-> NIL Hamas terrorists killed, per report.

The absurdity should be plain. There's no doubt terrorists have been getting hit regularly for weeks.

By conflating "citizens" and terrorists in one statistic, Hamas has enormously a). inflated "civilian" casualties b). covered up ANY of their operatives' losses.

The object evidently to depict abroad how brutal the Israelis are, and how ineffective their forces are.

That an obvious deception goes unchallenged by reporters and aid agencies who obediently passed the Narrative down the media chain, and considering what this kind of news has been doing to ostracize and incite violence on Jews everywhere, shows their professional dishonesty and moral cowardice.

(E.g. on last Sunday the IDF reported "hitting 600 targets". They don't release much but what there is is usually genuine. At a low figure, if just a few terrorists were killed per target that's already over 1000 - for any who believe the "targets" were hospitals, children's creches and old age homes there's no hope for you).

Edited November 1, 2023 by whYNOT

[Eiuol]

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

The absurdity should be plain. There's no doubt terrorists have been getting hit regularly for weeks.

Do we have estimates of how many Hamas terrorists there are? Whether or not the number is absurd depends on how many terrorists are available to kill, and trusting that the Israeli military is truly only trying to target Hamas. 

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

That an obvious deception

Sure, 8000 might be a deception. But that article you linked isn't even saying that the number is real, only that it is what Hamas reported. But if the number is actually 2000 civilians killed on purpose, say, I think that would be horrific as well. 

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

if just a few terrorists were killed per target that's already over 1000

The deception here would be if the civilians are actually terrorists. But let's say if a few terrorists are killed per target, that doesn't say how many civilians are killed per target as collateral. If only 300 civilians died, okay. But if every target consisted of something like five terrorists and 15 civilians, that would be quite different.

Unless you have some definitive number, you just are making up a story for what you hope is the case. Most of your speculation about how many have been killed is just assuming that Israel has always made the correct moral choice, as if it's impossible that they could do anything wrong.  

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Eiuol

[whYNOT]

From a recent Times of Israel story. This not meant to confirm my numbers-deception hypothesis. It shows for the first time I've seen anywhere, a little push-back against what the "Hamas-run health ministry" puts out, accepted by all as Gospel Truth

- does not distinguish between civilians and terror ...exactly. They are all "civilians".

Not one, or one thousand - or e.g. 5000 - of the (purported today) 9000+ deaths 'a fighter against Zionism'. The Hamas terrorists simply disappeared into thin air, the IDF can't find them anywhere in that tiny territory.

According to the Hamas-run health ministry, more than 8,700 Palestinians have been killed in the war, and more than 22,000 people have been wounded. The figure, which could not be confirmed, would be without precedent in decades of Israeli-Palestinian violence. Hamas has been accused of artificially inflating the death toll, and it also does not distinguish between civilians and terror operatives. The terror group has pushed back against such claims, releasing an unverified list of names it says represent those killed. Some of the dead are believed to be victims of Palestinian terrorists’ own misfired rockets.

 

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

15 hours ago, Eiuol said:

The deception here would be if the civilians are actually terrorists. But let's say if a few terrorists are killed per target, that doesn't say how many civilians are killed per target as collateral. If only 300 civilians died, okay. But if every target consisted of something like five terrorists and 15 civilians, that would be quite different.

Unless you have some definitive number, you just are making up a story for what you hope is the case. Most of your speculation about how many have been killed is just assuming that Israel has always made the correct moral choice, as if it's impossible that they could do anything wrong.  

 

Slipping into "moral equivalence" needs to be watched out for. Everyone of the global "pro-Palestinians" is doing it.

One signifier: Relative "numbers" of casualties, already "disproportionately" in Israel's 'favor' is obviously going to greatly increase before this is done.

"They lost x people, we are losing x++ people". Unfair! Genocidal!

What everyone evades: this is a war of retaliatory self-defence. "Existential" - for Israel.

First, to end the immediate assault. Israel has briefly done that many times with Gaza, then stood down in order to save civilian lives, and bought a short period of non-hostilities.. It did not work--self-evidently. 

Second and extended stage of their self-defence, to ensure a repeated attack cannot ever recur.

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by whYNOT

[Grames]

Posting to subscribe to the thread.   I really don't care about this conflict because I am neither jewish nor muslim.  I would just like to remind everyone of the big picture: modern Isreal exists because of the ideology of Zionism and jewish supremacism embedded within it.  If Zionism is invalid then anything which is a consequence of Zionism is invalid.

[Easy Truth]

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

What everyone evades: this is a war of retaliatory self-defence. "Existential" - for Israel.

Yes, it is existential. So why don't they make a lasting peace with their enemies which are gaining in population and technology?

Israel is evading that reality.

But my interest lies in not being dragged into a nonsensically initiated war. I would agree with Grames that Zionism cannot be a justification for anything. 

[stansfield123]

4 hours ago, Grames said:

I really don't care about this conflict because I am neither jewish nor muslim. 

That's just as collectivist as the flip side: "I care because I'm Jewish", or "I care because I'm Muslim". You're still justifying your views with a shallow, irrelevant political identity.

I'm also not Jewish or Muslim. The reason why I care about what happened on October 7 is because I'm a human, with a soul. Which means I have a comprehensive, consistent sense of justice, which causes me to feel revulsion when something so revolting happens.

Quote

If Zionism is invalid

If Zionism is invalid, it's okay to say "I don't care about beheaded babies, or about people fucking the corpses of young women they murdered at a music festival, because they were Jewish and I'm not"?

Edited November 2, 2023 by stansfield123

[Jon Letendre]

13 minutes ago, stansfield123 said:

That's just as collectivist as the flip side: "I care because I'm Jewish", or "I care because I'm Muslim". You're still justifying your views with a shallow, irrelevant political identity.

I'm also not Jewish or Muslim. The reason why I care about what happened on October 7 is because I'm a human, with a soul. Which means I have a comprehensive, consistent sense of justice, which causes me to feel revulsion when something so revolting happens.

Not collectivist. In - “I really don’t care about this conflict” because I have no dog in the fight, or words to that effect - I read simply that it doesn’t involve him, doesn’t involve his interests. It may as well be a battle between good and evil a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. “But which side is good and which is evil, you gotta decide!!” No, we don’t have to. We don’t have to be interested or care at all. There are too many conflicts today and it would take too much time. Not collectivist. Focused on what affects us.

[stansfield123]

22 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Do we have estimates of how many Hamas terrorists there are?

Not everyone in Hamas is a fighter. The fighting force itself is ~20-25K strong. Hamas (political leadership, police force, clergy, propagandists, the paid informants they have among the population, the people in charge of indoctrination, etc.) is probably around 100K strong (this is a wild guess, of course, just to illustrate the scale of it).

The IDF are under orders to obey the international laws of war, so they can't just follow a shoot on sight policy against unarmed individuals. However, any Hamas member or collaborator who cannot be safely captured is a legitimate target, under international law. The aerial attacks on Hamas member and collaborators (be it the military or administrative side of it) are perfectly legal.

The only way any of those 100K survive this is if they find a way to surrender safely. I can't say I wish them luck, but I assume many will surrender.

Edited November 2, 2023 by stansfield123

[AlexL]

3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

why don't they make a lasting peace with their enemies... Israel is evading that reality.

You sound like you see an obvious solution. What is it?