Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition

[whYNOT]

14 hours ago, tadmjones said:

 

The breach of the world’s most secure perimeter monitoring system wasn’t achieved by dint of surprise of time and place , the 50 th anniversary of the Yom Kippur war along a section of the Gaza border, alone.
 

If not by "surprise", what then? An attack contrived with Israeli help? (Gives them justification for entering Gaza...etc.etc.)

Denialism of the horrors will arise predictably - the blame will shift onto the victims.

An eyewitness account to put the record straight

https://rumble.com/v3za1om-warning-graphic-description-of-the-massacre-by-the-gazan-arab-muslims.html

 

Edited December 5, 2023 by whYNOT

[Easy Truth]

On 12/4/2023 at 6:38 AM, stansfield123 said:

Political philosophy is for interactions among people who hold a degree of civilization.

Does that not include those who can read and write??? The demonization of more than 5 million people (Palestinians) is akin to how the Jews were seen as sewer rats.

On 12/4/2023 at 6:38 AM, stansfield123 said:

Someone with no regard for philosophy will make better decisions than someone who follows philosophy without understanding the reason for it.

That is nonsense. It's a contradiction. Following a philosophy without knowing the reason for it is valuing faith-based ethics.  If that's what you're selling then you're definitely posting in the wrong forum.

[Grames]

On 12/4/2023 at 8:38 AM, stansfield123 said:

Someone with no regard for philosophy will make better decisions than someone who follows philosophy without understanding the reason for it.

"Someone with no regard for philosophy" vs. "someone who follows philosophy without understanding the reason for it"

These are the same thing.  They are descriptions of the same person from different perspectives.  Rand's answer to the question "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" was: everyone.  Before her some wit remarked upon how everyone is the slave of some dead philosopher without even knowing it.  

However, it seems that no one can be a slave of Rand without knowing it and needing to exert effort to know how.

[EC]

Besides what Grames and Odden stated what would Stanfield make any decisions on this subject or any other without at least an implicit philosophy, basic implicit epistemology and ethics? Oh yeah he couldn't. What's better passively absorbed implicit philosophy that is non-systematic and full of non-sense and contradictions (as he has repeatedly shown in his posts) or an explicit, systematic, hierarchical approach that leads explicitly to consistent, non-contradictory moral clarity, knowledge, and certainty on this subject and all others.

As stated above: Philosophy: Who Needs It?---- Again, the answer is *everyone*.

[whYNOT]

On 12/5/2023 at 1:04 PM, whYNOT said:

 

(and still no official word about Hamas casualties - as one would expect, they have to be extensive, at least half of the given numbers: so far, the Gazan "ministry of health" lists all deaths within "civilian casualties" - and mostly women and children - in order to signify Israel's genocidal intent. Believe the figures of an organization under terrorist control, you will believe anything) 

Again on that disingenuous propaganda uncritically accepted by all, from the Gazan "ministry of health", conflating civilians and Hamas deaths for international effect.

Below, the first credible Hamas casualty figures, from the IDF in a Times of Israel article. If not my estimated one-half (of the claimed "16,000 people"), this number about meets one-third (allowing for deliberate and certain falsification, the bare minimum). Another raw guess from previous conflicts: I suggest to divide the reported child casualties by half to a third.

"The rising death toll and unfolding humanitarian crisis in Gaza have sparked outrage in much of the world. The Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza says Israel’s military campaign, in response to the terror group’s murderous attacks, has killed more than 16,000 people so far, most of them women and children. Those figures cannot be independently verified, and are believed to include both Hamas terrorists and civilians, and people killed as a consequence of terror groups’ own rocket misfires.

"According to Israeli military estimates, some 5,000 Hamas members have been killed in the Gaza Strip, in addition to more than 1,000 terrorists killed in Israel during the October 7 onslaught". [ToI]

https://links.timesofisrael.com/ss/c/T8uDqR_8XwdjetGlfDilNAIYq3pOnIpuKkgofiebABPqFpDbbmMnbBzZVKFcyfAK3W7ZkmXYrvCZoZvGFtTjShV5buu6cdXx6XH4gFbG3CKbSv_KlGJKhO0tp66SEqwQGmtWOdb4hq7RhVzkFUtWgkHI83nrIi-sQKme6LlUxmI/41w/GusJ-ERaTdmu5TBqtp1r1g/h40/l7hw1dDhzFXrlgFDMaNpL1UtL2VVfbhQARaQuxVfbK8

Edited December 7, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

"This is the most documented atrocity humanity has known", she told me.

Seldom the BBC backs up and verifies Israel's side. The Islamist fanboys want the story brushed over, i.e. "Zionist propaganda".

[Graphic warning]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67629181

 

 

Edited December 7, 2023 by whYNOT

[AlexL]

On 12/4/2023 at 2:45 PM, tadmjones said:

There is a lot of talk about 'the terror tunnel system' within Gaza along with the implication that their presence represents a direct threat to the safety of the Israelis. The connotation always being that they are offensive structures, but if they are located within Gaza and assuming they all/most terminate within Gaza, their utility is probably more significant tactically, strategically, and logistically in an incursion into Gaza, no?

On 12/4/2023 at 5:05 PM, tadmjones said:

the tunnel network is a defensive utility for the terrorists.

No.

You are certainly aware that these tunnels are used also for storing weapons, including rockets and missiles. As well as for housing Hamas leadership and operatives.

You are also aware that Hamas fired dozen of thousands of rockets and missiles from Gaza into Israel. in the last weeks, but also before that.

So, let's connect the points to understand how it works: 

Hamas leadership sends small groups of operatives to collect weapons from the tunnel storages, to pop up at the surface from the many hidden tunnel shafts, fire the rockets/missiles then disappear back in the tunnel network.

If this usage of the tunnel network is defensive, what would be an offensive usage???😁

[tadmjones]

2 hours ago, AlexL said:

No.

You are certainly aware that these tunnels are used also for storing weapons, including rockets and missiles. As well as for housing Hamas leadership and operatives.

You are also aware that Hamas fired dozen of thousands of rockets and missiles from Gaza into Israel. in the last weeks, but also before that.

So, let's connect the points to understand how it works: 

Hamas leadership sends small groups of operatives to collect weapons from the tunnel storages, to pop up at the surface from the many hidden tunnel shafts, fire the rockets/missiles then disappear back in the tunnel network.

If this usage of the tunnel network is defensive, what would be an offensive usage???😁

The lethal harassment of the civilian population by Hamas is a means of warfare by terror as opposed to confronting the military assets of the Israeli state.

The firing of the rockets is obviously offensive, but even your description shows the defensive capacity/utility of the tunnel as providing the protection of the operatives and materials. 

My argument was not about the proper classification or identification of military tactics or assets , but about the propaganda value of that identification or description ‘legally’ correct or not. 

What is more of a threat to the Israeli people the tunnels in Gaza or the missiles in Gaza? Or those in Lebanon or the West Bank ? 

If the tunnels are seen as a primarily offensive asset/threat then military action by Israel against the ‘tunnels’ and the tunnel operators is more palatable to the West than direct military action directed at Lebanon or in the West Bank.

A tunnel system is in essence a defense against harassment that can be exploited to offer offensive capabilities, especially in a system that terminates within your own territory.

In western media the offensive nature of the Gaza tunnels serves the same purpose as the democratic nature and territorial integrity of Ukraine, in that the are both sorta/kinda true-ish , but the appearance/acceptance of them as literal true is the propaganda aimed at garnering approval of the various state actors.

 

 

Edited December 8, 2023 by tadmjones

[AlexL]

36 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

The firing of the rockets [by Hamas, using the Gaza tunnels] is obviously offensive

You are thus refuting your own unqualified claim that "the tunnel network is a defensive utility for the terrorists"

[tadmjones]

Is the whole of the infrastructure of Gaza City an offensive asset? If that identification holds somebody should raze that fucker , eh?

[whYNOT]

12 hours ago, tadmjones said:

 

If the tunnels are seen as a primarily offensive asset/threat then military action by Israel against the ‘tunnels’ and the tunnel operators is more palatable to the West than direct military action directed at Lebanon or in the West Bank.

A tunnel system is in essence a defense against harassment that can be exploited to offer offensive capabilities, especially in a system that terminates within your own territory.

 

 

 

Hamas' single modus operandi/tactcs is and was, on countless occasions - to incite and provoke the IDF to enter Gaza.

Any way they could. Take a soldier hostage, a suicide attack inside Israel, a lethal barrage of rockets, etc.

The bait and trap.

They could predict the outcome.

With retaliatory force, the Air Force bombards key buildings (nearly always with advance warnings) and Hamas sites preparatory to ground troops entering this dangerous, dense warren of streets and tunnels, and in the bombing and fighting, naturally civilians are killed.

Hamas gets to "heroically" kill a few soldiers - but primarily - gets world news coverage vilifying the "brutal" slaying of civilians, turning millions against Israel and world Jews.

1. 2. 3. The entire point of the operation was purposefully that: to get Israeli forces into Gaza, killing civilians. 

 When they are inside the territory, the tunnel system is self-evidently - offensive.

That use of their civilian lives - literally, the more dead the better - for propaganda (that has reached new heights presently), is an evil fact innocent Westerners who value life, balk at accepting, seemingly. But all Arabs in the region and Israelis understand the strategy, and some of the former have publicly condemned the terrorists for that.

The overwhelming military power of the IDF, Hamas could not oppose in open battle. This way, they keep military/psychological pressure on the Israelis to the satisfaction of their Iranian overlords.

Here the fundamental fact both the moderate or fanatic Muslims are long intimately familiar with - it's not Israel that had "laid siege" to "concentration camp" Gaza, as pro-Palestinian useful idiots proclaim, but the reverse. Israel has been under permanent siege.

When they dropped their guard in October, that was what they received.

Edited December 9, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

The thoughts and experiences of one "radical" Muslim woman (a FOR Israel radical).

 

Edited December 9, 2023 by whYNOT

[EC]

All that has to be stated in this thread is the false and evil (just war theory), false propaganda, evil philosophy and premises, vs the actual concept of Justice.

[AlexL]

14 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Is the whole of the infrastructure of Gaza City an offensive asset? If that identification holds somebody should raze that fucker , eh?

Do you claim that this is the identification that the Israeli government makes? Care to prove?

[tadmjones]

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

Do you claim that this is the identification that the Israeli government makes? Care to prove?

No(and by that I mean I have no idea what the Israeli govt gives as identification ), I am claiming that identification if accepted as true would give license to parties to act within that specific paradigm.

The offensive only nature of an underground tunnel system is not an objective fact, it is an opinion/ description and the promotion of that position can (is) being used as propaganda in the west to align public support in a specific direction. Agreed?

[whYNOT]

That fine and forthright intellectual, James Lindsay on UnHerd

 

[SpookyKitty]

The notion that Palestinians don't have rights is absurd. What grants rights to a being is the possession of the capacity for reason. Not the exercise of reason nor the ability to reason well, but merely the capacity. Hence, even radical Islamists, collectivists of all kinds, etc. still have rights.

Before one can declare the actions of a being to be evil or immoral, it must first be granted that he is capable of choosing otherwise, i.e. that he has the capacity for reason. Hence, an animal cannot be held morally responsible for killing a human. And to call any human evil is to recognize his underlying (albeit underutilized) capacity for reason.

Civilization is not a prerequisite for rights. Rights are a prerequisite for civilization. No one who denies the equal rights of another has any right to call himself "civilized".

[Craig24]

20 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

The notion that Palestinians don't have rights is absurd.

 

20 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

even radical Islamists, collectivists of all kinds, etc. still have rights.

Yeah everyone does have rights but what point are you making?  How is this related to the actions necessary for Israeli security against terrorism?  Or is it your claim that acknowledging such rights prohibits risking collateral damage in a retaliation by Israel?  What option does Israel have that they are not undertaking that would adequately protect Israel and prevent the collateral damage that so many object to? 

Edited December 11, 2023 by Craig24

[whYNOT]

20 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

The notion that Palestinians don't have rights is absurd. What grants rights to a being is the possession of the capacity for reason. Not the exercise of reason nor the ability to reason well, but merely the capacity. Hence, even radical Islamists, collectivists of all kinds, etc. still have rights.

 

And who must uphold and protect those "rights"? Which are founded upon man's nature, one's "right to life", therefore the right to the freedom of action to pursue one's life as one sees fit.

Another government?

One's own lawful government - right?

An unlawful terrorist 'Govt' - a self contradicton - which abuses its own people's rights and the rights of another nation's people is criminal, contra reason and human value. Like a common criminal, it automatically loses its rights.

I have no obligation to regard "the rights" ("freedom of action") of someone who comes to harm me, and my government/police/army has the single imperative to defend its citizens' rights.

In the case of Israel, not to only end the immediate threat, but preempt all possible future threats.

The terrorist/terror group has a *prerogative* to defend himself--a cornered rat will usually fight back--but that is not his "right".

In combating them, a Gvt. and Army might select to be as humane as possible towards non-combatants, by rational choice (with little self-sacrifice) not by their rights.

Edited December 11, 2023 by whYNOT

[EC]

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

And who must uphold and protect those "rights"? Which are founded upon man's nature, one's "right to life", therefore the right to the freedom of action to pursue one's life as one sees fit.

Another government?

One's own lawful government - right?

An unlawful terrorist 'Govt' - a self contradicton - which abuses its own people's rights and the rights of another nation's people is criminal, contra reason and human value. Like a common criminal, it automatically loses its rights.

I have no obligation to regard "the rights" ("freedom of action") of someone who comes to harm me, and my government/police/army has the single imperative to defend its citizens' rights.

In the case of Israel, not to only end the immediate threat, but preempt all possible future threats.

The terrorist/terror group has a *prerogative* to defend himself--a cornered rat will usually fight back--but that is not his "right".

In combating them, a Gvt. and Army might select to be as humane as possible towards non-combatants, by rational choice (with little self-sacrifice) not by their rights.

Exactly correct point for point.

[SpookyKitty]

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

And who must uphold and protect those "rights"? Which are founded upon man's nature, one's "right to life", therefore the right to the freedom of action to pursue one's life as one sees fit.

Another government?

One's own lawful government - right?

An unlawful terrorist 'Govt' - a self contradicton - which abuses its own people's rights and the rights of another nation's people is criminal, contra reason and human value. Like a common criminal, it automatically loses its rights.

An unlawful terrorist government? I'm confused. Are you talking about Israel here?

Quote

I have no obligation to regard "the rights" ("freedom of action") of someone who comes to harm me, and my government/police/army has the single imperative to defend its citizens' rights.

This is false. You absolutely must always respect the rights of those trying to harm you. An entire body of criminal law exists to protect the rights of criminals and the accused. It carefully delineates what kinds of actions are justifiable or unjustifiable in the course of bringing a criminal to justice.

This is not some courtesy granted out of pity or mercy, but a basic foundation of justice.

Quote

In the case of Israel, not to only end the immediate threat, but preempt all possible future threats.

Preempting all possible future threats is neither a necessary nor possible nor morally justifiable course of action.

 

[Easy Truth]

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

And who must uphold and protect those "rights"?

If all Palestinians are criminals, then they should lose their rights based on being human. This assumes that the "initiator of force" is clear ... and that all Palestinians are criminals. We know that Hamas operatives did their heinous deeds. What Hamas did was horrible. Meanwhile, what Israel is doing is horrible too with a much higher body count. The heinousness of an act does not necessarily determine your "rights". If it was a retaliation then the horror would have some justification. If it was not, it was a meaningless savage attack.

First and foremost, the individual has to protect their rights. After that, it's the agency that they create, relinquishing that responsibility and giving it to the monopoly on force. This means that the way HAMAS was created is relevant.

Israel was complicit in creating this so-called government (HAMAS) to weaken the political power that the PLO provided. It also contributed to the living conditions, with 2.5 million people blockaded on 3 sides. It was a chess move Israel made that contributed to this catastrophe. Did the Palestinian people have a "right" to an un interfered with Political process? Did they have the right to the PLO representing them? Mind you, the PLO is corrupt, but it does accept Israel's right to exist.

Successive Israeli governments and settlers have harmed Palestinians too. This is assuming that Palestinians have rights. If Palestinians are human, then they have rights. After the Oslo Agreement (with the PLO), Palestinian claims have been ignored or sidelined.

Assuming that one side does not have rights simply based on their civilization would allow conclusions that all individuals in communist systems, feudal countries, countries with kings or Queens, or Socialist or Fascist systems don't deserve natural rights. After all, their "system" is not civilized i.e. they are not civilized.

Individuals are not programmed by their DNA to want to kill members of certain groups. We have free will. Each wants to flourish like any human. Palestinians will need to be considered human with associated rights to enable a mutually agreeable solution. One side being subhuman is succumbing to emotion.

 

[tadmjones]

As to a 'permanent' solution , for Gaza at least, Curtis Yarvin floated an out of the box proposal and seemingly only 2/3 tongue in cheek.

The idea would be to relocate the whole of the Gazans to another part of the planet, say give them an island camp in Indonesia or some such and have the Israeli government set up a type of perpetual lease agreement for the territory.

Ethnic cleansing coupled with reparation style remunerations in perpetuity is on its face better than genocide(not that what Israel is doing is genocide, just that without a two state solution one group has to go).

[Craig24]

7 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

This is false. You absolutely must always respect the rights of those trying to harm you. An entire body of criminal law exists to protect the rights of criminals and the accused. It carefully delineates what kinds of actions are justifiable or unjustifiable in the course of bringing a criminal to justice.

That's fine but you must show me what Israel is doing wrong here.  Hamas has openly stated they exist to destroy Israel.  Hamas backs that stated intent in action (terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians).  Israel is left with two options:  Destroy Hamas (risking collateral damage) or take no action and be destroyed by Hamas.  If you see a third option that secures Israel from future attacks that somehow leaves Palestinians unharmed I'm all ears.   

[EC]

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

(not that what Israel is doing is genocide, just that without a two state solution one group has to go).

Maybe in the current context, but why can't the long-term solution be for these groups to learn to respect the individual rights of one another and drop any form of tribalism and become what America once was as a melting pot where only a small minority of actual criminals violated the rights and personal sovereignty of others which is appropriately handled by a proper individual rights respecting government? Obviously, Israel is the closest to that and that is the reason why they should be supported morally by all rights respecting individuals of the world in their effort to root out terrorist threats against its citizens and root out the ideological cause of it.