Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition

[AlexL]

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

23 hours ago, AlexL said:

Whose exercise?

The wishers of Israel's extermination, of course! Who did you think? i.e. Islamists with their western sycophants. 

OK

[AlexL]

15 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

Watch the entire lecture ...

Why should I watch what an adept of one of the parties in conflict is saying? He will proclaim as truth whatever he wants. As I have all the reasons to believe he is prejudiced, I can't take anything he says for granted and I will have to check everything. So why listen at all?

Have I ever given you as proof anything said by a pro-Israeli?

15 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

Quote

PS: You are trying to argue that Israel is perpetrating a genocide in Gaza (and in Palestine in general) by analyzing the ideological currents in the Israeli society - instead of by examining the factual events, like the enormous (sarcasm/added) percentage of dead Gazans or the catastrophic (sarcasm/added) fall in the Palestinian population, in West Bank and Gaza.

As to your "analysis" of the ideological currents - it is all fraudulent.

PS2. The David Sheen lecture is sponsored by www.palaestina.ch. Is it from this kind of sites that you get your information regarding Israel ?

You're clearly all out of arguments. All you have left is racist memes and head-in-the-sand denialism.

No, it these are good and relevant argument, but you put yourself in a position of having no choice but to claim I am a racist and genocide denialist😁.

Quote

We're done speaking.

I understand you very well: what else can you do?

Edited December 20, 2023 by AlexL

[Easy Truth]

Both sides have engaged in indiscriminate killing. War will create some indiscriminate killing. Successful killing in war is to have more firepower than the other side. Hamas engaged in that in Israel and now Israel is engaging in that in Gaza. If we want to go based on per capita body count, then Israel is killing more right now. If we go by openly heinousness, then maybe Hamas wins that game.

But to claim that Israel is not engaging in indiscriminate killing is easily disproven. Or that Palestinians don't have any reason to be resentful is easily disproven. Currently, Israel cannot discriminate between their people, the hostages, and the enemy. The debate is now about the percentage of people killed as if the percentages determine if it is a killing, a murder, or a genocide.

Both sides don't understand that it's the indiscriminate hate that is the problem, it won't stop. One side will always find a weak point and attack it and this will go on forever. In other words, the hate cannot guide toward the ideal and the ideal is not the annihilation of the other side.

[SpookyKitty]

25 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Both sides don't understand that it's the indiscriminate hate that is the problem, it won't stop. One side will always find a weak point and attack it and this will go on forever. In other words, the hate cannot guide toward the ideal and the ideal is not the annihilation of the other side.

The hate is ultimately rooted in bad philosophy. Zionists and their supporters both here and elsewhere automatically assume that anyone who criticizes Israel's atrocities must be some kind of Hamas stooge and that Hamas' war crimes somehow justify Israel's. They don't. Zionism and Islamism are not really opposed to each other. They are in a symbiotic relationship of self-destruction. But so many are willfully blind to Israel's crimes just because they look and sound like us.

[Eiuol]

11 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

The word "systematic" does not appear anywhere in the UN genocide convention.

1-4 is ad hoc without any particular organization besides a general attitude or culture of behavior. 5-10 are all by nature systematic things. If you want to get specific, your link talks about a cultural climate that genocide arises out of. 

11 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

there was no special intent by any part of US leadership to destroy the Vietnamese people as such.

My Lai massacre. This is as much a genocide as anything based on what you're saying. Killing anything that moves. And not just a few soldiers that did it. I mean, clearly we are distinguishing forms of barbarism, but I'm saying the word genocide has to be something direct and pervasive. To an extent all war is about 'us' versus 'them' since the vast majority of wars are unjustified. All unjustified wars are in some way racist. Of wars that are only partially justified, you will still find people who support the war for racist reasons. 

There seems to be a difference between starting a war with racist overtones, as opposed to merely exterminating. I mean, the founding charter of Hamas called for the extermination of Jews, not just the end of the Israeli state. If it was just the end of the Israeli state, that wouldn't be genocidal even though it would be still grounded in racism because of what Hamas thought about Jews. The extermination of Jews is genocidal, because that's not just seeking what they see as justice, or what they see as self-defense, but seeking out extermination in and of itself. 

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Eiuol

[AlexL]

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

Both sides have engaged in indiscriminate killing. ... now Israel is engaging in that in Gaza

OK, let's see the arguments.

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

If we want to go based on per capita body count, then Israel is killing more right now.

What is indiscriminate killing? How would per capita body count prove indiscriminate killing?

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

But to claim that Israel is not engaging in indiscriminate killing is easily disproven.

OK, let's see the arguments.

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

Currently, Israel cannot discriminate between their people, the hostages, and the enemy.

Cannot discriminate 100%.

What is your point? In any war, more so in a urban war in "the most densely populated area in the world", shit happens: friendly fire, breach of the rules of engagement. (Besides, in our case, the other side has no such rules, and no rules at all. Just to mention)

This is widely known. Speculate on this is dishonest. The ultimate responsible for everything that happens in a war - to the military, to the civilians, to the infrastructure - is the aggressor.

The only obligation is to avoid, not killing, this is not the standard, but only to deliberately targeting civilians. It is an opened question for me if the respect for rules is not reciprocal.

Of course, Hamas doesn't, but there is no big outcry about this, not even clear condemnation of the international bodies. For this, Israel is a so much more comfortable target - for over 60 years already.

You focused on missteps to draw wide ranging conclusions.

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

The debate is now about the percentage of people killed as if the percentages determine if it is a killing, a murder, or a genocide.

Who determines what the case is, in specific cases? IOW, who debates and conclusively decides? Each for himself? The public opinion? Majority vote? Specialized tribunals (that is after the war)?

Edited December 20, 2023 by AlexL

[SpookyKitty]

9 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

1-4 is ad hoc without any particular organization besides a general attitude or culture of behavior. 5-10 are all by nature systematic things. If you want to get specific, your link talks about a cultural climate that genocide arises out of.

Ok... But what's your point?

Quote

My Lai massacre. This is as much a genocide as anything based on what you're saying. Killing anything that moves. And not just a few soldiers that did it. I mean, clearly we are distinguishing forms or barbarism, but I'm saying the word genocide has to be something direct and pervasive. To an extent all war is about us versus them since the vast majority of wars are unjustified. All unjustified wars are in some way racist. Of wars that are only partially justified, you will still find people who support the war for racist reasons. 

There seems to be a difference between starting a war with racist overtones, as opposed to merely exterminating. I mean, the founding charter of Hamas called for the extermination of Jews, not just the end of the Israeli state. If it was just the end of the Israeli state, that wouldn't be genocidal even though it would be still grounded in racism because of what Hamas thought about Jews. The extermination of Jews is genocidal, because that's not just seeking what they see as justice, or what they see as self-defense, but seeking out extermination in and of itself. 

Mass killing is actually insufficient to prove genocide. One must also prove that there is a "special intent", on the part of the perpetrators of the mass killing, to eradicate a people group as such. That the perpetrators are "merely" racist would be insufficient.

 

[Eiuol]

2 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

One must also prove that there is a "special intent", on the part of the perpetrators of the mass killing, to eradicate a people group as such.

This is my point about the first part, that special intent requires systematic effort. You can't have ad hoc special intent, and you could only establish it by pointing out systematic effort. 

2 hours ago, AlexL said:

What is your point? In any war, more so in a urban war in "the most densely populated area in the world", shit happens: friendly fire, breach of the rules of engagement.

At the absolute minimum, it's easy to show that Israel does not have a competent military. 

 

[AlexL]

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

3 hours ago, AlexL said:

What is your point? In any war, more so in a urban war in "the most densely populated area in the world", shit happens: friendly fire, breach of the rules of engagement.

At the absolute minimum, it's easy to show that Israel does not have a competent military. 

Then show it! Are you a military expert? What level of knowledge do you have specifically about Israeli military?

Edited December 20, 2023 by AlexL

[SpookyKitty]

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

This is my point about the first part, that special intent requires systematic effort. You can't have ad hoc special intent, and you could only establish it by pointing out systematic effort.

1) Where are you getting this from?

2) To prove intent requires that you prove something about the state of mind of another person, which, in this case, means proving that they are seeking the physical destruction of a group in whole or in part. It does not require you to prove that they are doing it well.

[Eiuol]

10 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:

1) Where are you getting this from?

Reasoning in general. Being systematic, as in essentially and on purpose, rather than incidentally and ad hoc. I don't see how you can have an intent without an essential and purposeful goal. 

14 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:

It does not require you to prove that they are doing it well.

Of course not, that's not why I'm bringing up incompetency. I'm mentioning it because Alex seems to be insisting that Israel not only did nothing wrong, but that what they are doing is making meaningful progress toward safety or individual rights. The fact that Israel has practically always been in a state of war suggests that what it's doing is causing more conflict and making everything worse. If the idea is that Israel should be allowed to do literally anything to defend itself (even though you and I agree that there is a rational limit, Alex and others disagree), then what it does should actually work. 

 

[whYNOT]

11 hours ago, AlexL said:

@whYNOT, have you notices that @SpookyKitty argues for the always righteous Palestine and against the “genocidal” Israel in the exactly same way as you argued for the always righteous putinist Russia and against the “Nazi” Ukraine? That is by presenting the Palestinian narrative and the associated lies and never proving anything?

That was a war that needn't have happened. Clear cut. The info is in. To the simple-minded, being against that war, urging diplomacy, and warning of its likely outcomes and condemning the (litany of) evasions by the Western bloc in tacitly and eventually allowing the death of a half- million men and the country's destruction - in order "to defend Europe" --equates with "Pro-Putin"...

Contra the actions, or inactions, by the western powers and their propagandizing for a "righteous" conflict to dangerously continue, unnegotiated (from the start til the present), does not equate with "pro-Russia", in general.

Or being "anti-West" in general.  

You could'nt grasp that false alternative then, clearly do not now. 

There's my reply to the simple-minded "in the exactly same way".

Evasion of the known (or of possible or most probable) foul outcomes, equates with Objectivist "evil".

In exactly the same way, Hamas evaded - welcomed, in fact - the certain consequences of their deeds upon ordinary Gazans.

Edited December 21, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

There are not nor should be, stipulated rules of war. There should be no "rules" introduced to an inherently brutal and amoral business. Along with O. Ghate, rules are the attempt "to sanitize" wars.

Going further, they are the attempt to make killing and being killed, "ethical", normal and "acceptable". The terrible human cost of war mustn't be lessened in the public consciousness. What is this - the 'rules' and 'scores' for some war video game in popular entertainment, I sense? Thereby, wars proliferate. 

What there is remaining, is a chosen, rational policy by one party to an unavoidable - defensive - war. In effect: "WE do not stoop to such and such tactics". Allowing for the fog of war, and human error - as much as is humanly possible. Even at some cost to our soldiers - even when the enemy does.

The only law in war: Win. End it.

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

Dispelled: any doubts Hamas shares humanitarian concerns for their suffering Gazans. 

This time, it is *Israel* that offered a humanitarian respite. Confounding the cynics.

Hamas makes their premises obvious with every move, but, everyone wants to believe the 'freedom fighter' fantasy. The so-called "oppressed" expose they are the oppressors.

Expect a military escalation from the IDF. I don't see the terrorists lasting long.

https://www.rt.com/news/589423-hamas-rejects-israeli-truce-offer/

Edited December 21, 2023 by whYNOT

[AlexL]

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

https://www.rt.com/news/589423-hamas-rejects-israeli-truce-offer/

Russia Today continues to be @whYNOT's Bible...

[tadmjones]

Maybe just the KJV , the article cites WSJ as its source.

[AlexL]

59 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Maybe just the KJV , the article cites WSJ as its source.

Then why not cite directly WSJ ??

Russia Today and other state-owned Russian publication are known for distorted reporting of foreign content.

Case in point: a study by RAND Corporation which was cited by @whYNOTthrough RT, where it was heavily purged and which I discussed in the thread starting here

Edited December 21, 2023 by AlexL

[whYNOT]

Ha! I can read AL like a book. I knew RT would get him excited.  AL, I believe you are an actuary, a notary or other nit-picking, quibbling profession.  

Irrelevant. Objection overruled.

[AlexL]

22 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

...

you are again evading. as usual...

[whYNOT]

2 hours ago, AlexL said:

you are again evading. as usual...

I expect an explanation for that put-down. Specify. Evading what?

Your normal one-liner won't suffice. Form a reasoned counterargument for once. On reading journalism widely and propaganda techniques? being fearful of hearing opposing facts/ opinions, e.g., 'judging a book by its cover'? I've covered those.

How many have been as upfront and self-explanatory as I've been? exhaustive (if not boringly repetitive). 

"Evading" what?

Edited December 21, 2023 by whYNOT

[Eiuol]

On 12/20/2023 at 5:55 PM, AlexL said:

Then show it! Are you a military expert? What level of knowledge do you have specifically about Israeli military?

Israel has been in a constant state of war with gaps of maybe only a few years. I can't think of examples of countries that are unable to defeat their enemies for such a long period of time. What more do you want me to say? You could try to blame Islamic fundamentalism as the only reason, but so many countries have even stopped that within their own borders (like in the Balkans) or stopped any further escalation of direct attacks (the US after 9/11). It's still an issue, but it's not a constant threat. 

Edited December 22, 2023 by Eiuol

[SpookyKitty]

On 12/20/2023 at 7:54 PM, Eiuol said:

Reasoning in general. Being systematic, as in essentially and on purpose, rather than incidentally and ad hoc. I don't see how you can have an intent without an essential and purposeful goal.

 

Things can be done on purpose and unsystematically, but I would also argue that using an organized military and a plan which involved corralling the Palestinian population into the south of Gaza through a relentless bombing campaign of the north and then proceeding to bomb the very place they claimed would be safe for civilians is pretty systematic.

 

Quote

Of course not, that's not why I'm bringing up incompetency. I'm mentioning it because Alex seems to be insisting that Israel not only did nothing wrong, but that what they are doing is making meaningful progress toward safety or individual rights. The fact that Israel has practically always been in a state of war suggests that what it's doing is causing more conflict and making everything worse. If the idea is that Israel should be allowed to do literally anything to defend itself (even though you and I agree that there is a rational limit, Alex and others disagree), then what it does should actually work. 

Indeed.

[Easy Truth]

On 12/20/2023 at 12:37 PM, AlexL said:

On 12/20/2023 at 11:20 AM, Easy Truth said:

Both sides have engaged in indiscriminate killing. ... now Israel is engaging in that in Gaza

OK, let's see the arguments.

On 12/20/2023 at 11:20 AM, Easy Truth said:

If we want to go based on per capita body count, then Israel is killing more right now.

What is indiscriminate killing? How would per capita body count prove indiscriminate killing?

On 12/20/2023 at 11:20 AM, Easy Truth said:

But to claim that Israel is not engaging in indiscriminate killing is easily disproven.

OK, let's see the arguments.

On 12/20/2023 at 11:20 AM, Easy Truth said:

Currently, Israel cannot discriminate between their people, the hostages, and the enemy.

Cannot discriminate 100%.

The arguments will ultimately rest on the issue of "Is Hamas a legitimate entity to negotiate with or not" regardless of the issue of indiscriminate killing. Because the world sees both sides as indiscriminate killers since Israel decided not to keep its hands clean. It inevitably has to negotiate with Hamas.

By definition, not being able to discriminate between an innocent vs. non-innocent and therefore killing one single innocent is an indiscriminate killing. Both sides can make a case that it was justified. In the case of what Hamas did, it was indiscriminate. For example, they intended to kill Jews but they killed the citizens of Thailand in one Kibbutz. Even killing one person is an indiscriminate killing. Certainly, 15,000 civilians in Gaza is an obvious example. Of course, the Israeli invasion was done very carefully and with all the good intentions possible, but the fact remains, that the Israeli operation is not killing only Hamas operatives or even Palestinian criminals. It is not discriminating because the intention and the situation does not allow for discrimination.

You make the case yourself with "cannot discriminate 100%". That is the proof right there that indiscriminate killing is happening and you resist seeing that killing "some" indiscriminately is indiscriminate killing. The only way to avoid it was in hindsight, in the past by not creating and getting into this mess.

You could argue that Israel currently has no better choice but to indiscriminately kill "some" but you are arguing that they do not commit indiscriminate killing which is false. 15000 civilians aren't easily ignored.

What would change your mind? If Israel in its pursuit of Hamas, kills 500000 civilians, would that change your mind or would they still have the right to do that? What if they killed 2 million people? Perhaps no number will change your mind. Then perhaps the only solution is 2.5 million people. That would seem to get rid of Hamas. Is that the ideal solution and how is it justified?

 

[Eiuol]

11 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

That is the proof right there that indiscriminate killing is happening and you resist seeing that killing "some" indiscriminately is indiscriminate killing.

The point is indiscriminate killing as a policy, I think that's what he's getting at. Not a failure of discrimination, but no attempt at it. This follows from the premise of "all actions in self-defense are justified, any bad consequence is purely in the hands of the initiator" makes it so that making any discrimination is going to get in the way of self-defense. Therefore, the best action is always to flatten and delete entire regions, without regard for innocent civilians or collateral damage. 

The fact is, that there is some rational limit is not really a barrier to self-defense. It's actually possible to negotiate with terrorists, not in the sense of giving them what they want, but taking advantage of their short-term goals so that your long-term goals win out in the end. With modern technology, we can be so discriminant that innocent deaths are almost always catastrophic failures, and sometimes engaging in war is not even necessary. Imagine destroying Hamas without killing any civilians. It is possible. This is a more effective way to dismantle modern terrorism.

 

 

 

[Eiuol]

12 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Perhaps no number will change your mind. Then perhaps the only solution is 2.5 million people.

6 million is perfect. Not just an ideal solution, but a final solution.