Israel-Palestine escalation live: Gaza under bombardment after Hamas attack

[MaxOfMetal]

Is it telling that when the moderators participated in this thread, their posts were pro-Palestine if anything?

And what does that tell? If anything?

 

[narad]

I give up.

When people are oppressed for decades they resort to extremes. Saying Palestinians should stop shooting missiles is like saying black people in America should stop doing crime. They aren't behaving that way because it's in their nature; they're behaving that way because the system removes every other option.

This is systemic racism 101.

I must have missed the chapter on civil rights when MLK showed up to the polls with a bazooka.

 

[StevenC]

I must have missed the chapter on civil rights when MLK showed up to the polls with a bazooka.

You're better than this.

 

[narad]

And what does that tell? If anything?

That if I'm getting accused of condoning war crimes, then my lack of a ban isn't due to a pro-Israel mod team (I think that was the insinuation of the prev poster)

You're better than this.

Please, I don't want to deal with these Gen Z non-argument snapbacks.

 

[narad]

okay...i'll humor your logic here:

A) Israel is being funded by US, Canada, UK and god know what other countries. It is an unfair advantage that Israel has over Palestine. The advantage that Israel could have had had they had NO international support, similar to Palestine, then okay, apples to apples, and then a 'war' could have been fought. But this was never a war. Even back then during the 7 day war, it was never a fair fight. When Israel is there, it is there because the UN/UK drew up a piece of land for them to be there.

B ) When Israel is 'attacking' Palestine, it isn't just Israel, but USA/Canada/Western World. Similarly to how Ukraine isn't fighting alone. It is heavily being funded by USA/Canada and rest of the western world. The difference is that Russia has a lot of other resources to draw from to continue this war of theirs. They have endless amount of people they can get to fight this war. Ukraine is not as powerful as Russia on its own. But through proxy wars, and with USA, Canada, UK, France, Germany etc helping Ukraine, Ukraine can fight back. Palestine does not have that option. Why? Because whatever funds that are coming that 'that piece of land' theoretically speaking, should be for 2 people, yet it isnt. If the western world was funding/supporting Palestine JUST as much as Israel, allowing both to stand on equal grounds, and force Israel to share their resources, and rights and stop participating in an apartheid....there would be equal grounds for peace to be achieved. That is an unfair advantage that Israel has.

Maybe it's unfair, but Israel as a country has a pretty advanced economy, great schools, good tech industry, etc. It's not like if we removed outside influence that it becomes an even playing field.

C) Due to the western world supporting a genocide, this is modern day colonialism. You either support colonization and ethnic cleansing and genocide and slavery of previous world powers....or you dont. You dont split hair under various circumstances.

It's nice that you can be pro-Palestine and no one makes the false equivalence of you being pro-killing babies or shooting civilians at a music festival, or just being pro-death-to-Jews as is laid out in the Hamas charter, and yet the same is not true when the shoe's on the other foot.

D) How did the Jewish community end up in Europe, Central Asia, Russia, Africa etc? Is it because...they...left? If they left, they should have abandoned that land to begin with. Your logic is not sound because Jewish people left to build diasporas in various other parts of the world. Because they left, as per your logic, they have no claims over that land under any circumstances. We circle back to modern day colonialism. Because Jews were being targeted for centuries in Russia, Europe, Central Asia, and other parts of the world prior to WW2. But hey, they 'could have left' those parts of the world too...

I don't get this at all. I don't believe people have rights to land. I believe people have the right to exist wherever they are, if they do so peacefully.

 

[profwoot]

narad, seriously. you're a good contributor to this site but you continue to humiliate yourself in this thread. your arguments are just so embarrassing i've had to stop reading this thread. Please read some palestinian or other expert perspectives on the situation. Even if you aren't moved by them it'll hone your arguments so we don't have to sit through all this simpleton flailing.

 

[Randy]

Never thought this thread could get darker but the last few pages went straight into the abyss.

 

[narad]

narad, seriously. you're a good contributor to this site but you continue to humiliate yourself in this thread. your arguments are just so embarrassing i've had to stop reading this thread. Please read some palestinian or other expert perspectives on the situation. Even if you aren't moved by them it'll hone your arguments so we don't have to sit through all this simpleton flailing.

There are expert opinions -on both sides-. There aren't (vocal) posters on both sides though. And regardless of whether my tone is confrontational, the fact that people are talking about me condoning genocide tells me people aren't actually reading or understanding the posts as they are written.

 

[soliloquy]

I don't get this at all. I don't believe people have rights to land. I believe people have the right to exist wherever they are, if they do so peacefully.

you did mention it before that if people are putting up with harassment/killing/torture/abuse/etc in one land, they can 'simply move'.


also, as per various online sources, Nova concert was shot by IDF. So your claim that it was Hamas killing Israeli, it seems that IDF, a superior military power poses more of a threat to its own citizens than Hamas. But no, you refuse to see it that way. I'm not overlooking Hamas's attack on Israel on Oct 7th. Just the specific Nova concert itself was not Hamas.

 

[narad]

you did mention it before that if people are putting up with harassment/killing/torture/abuse/etc in one land, they can 'simply move'.

Sure, I just don't understand the implication with the Jews. But also moreover, "simply move" is in contrast to generations of the status quo.

also, as per various online sources, Nova concert was shot by IDF. So your claim that it was Hamas killing Israeli, it seems that IDF, a superior military power poses more of a threat to its own citizens than Hamas. But no, you refuse to see it that way. I'm not overlooking Hamas's attack on Israel on Oct 7th. Just the specific Nova concert itself was not Hamas.

Honestly this is a conspiracy theory as far as I'm concerned. I see no confirmation from any trusted outlet, and I've seen it only spread amongst fringe groups. It goes against official claims from major outlets who covered the event, and also makes no sense. I mean, if I thought Israel was such an evil country that they would send helicopters to massacre their own civilians at a concert as a false flag to justify retribution on Palestine, well, I could see why there would be so much pro-Palestine sentiment here.

 

[soliloquy]

And yet, many in Germany didn't see Nazis as a problem...until they were.

Additionally, many in Israel that are protesting AGAINST the government, I guess they are secret Palestinians pretending to be Israelis.
Additionally:

Israel gave birth control to Ethiopian Jews without their consent

www.independent.co.uk

Birth control shots forced on Ethiopian women

Israeli government admits it had used birth control drugs without consent on some Ethiopian Jews.

www.aljazeera.com

Koolaid sure tastes delicious, huh?

 

[narad]

And yet, many in Germany didn't see Nazis as a problem...until they were.

Well let it be known that I'm the one having my posts criticized, and I'm the one who has to argue against the Nova concert attack being an IDF false flag op!

Additionally, many in Israel that are protesting AGAINST the government, I guess they are secret Palestinians pretending to be Israelis.
Additionally:

Israel gave birth control to Ethiopian Jews without their consent

www.independent.co.uk

Birth control shots forced on Ethiopian women

Israeli government admits it had used birth control drugs without consent on some Ethiopian Jews.

www.aljazeera.com

Yea, I mean, who said the Israel government was good? I'm not defending this.

 

[Randy]

Yea, I mean, who said the Israel government was good? I'm not defending this.

I mean, I think some of the issue is that your arguments come across as inconsistent.

Some of them are very clearly Palestine bad, Israel good. Some of them specifically call out Hamas. Some of them say civilians are okay collateral damage (though I think I've only seen that logic applied to Israel aggression toward palestine, but never the other way around?). Some of them say no aggression towards civilians is acceptable. Some of them say war is war, and it's a matter of superiority dictating outcomes. A lot of them are very tit for tat anti whatever the other person said regardless of if it matches or clashes with another point you made somewhere else. Edit: a while back, lots of them directly implicating Islam in violence, then saying it's not islamophobic when that's what it is by definition.

So I mean, I think a bit of the confusion is that it's somewhat hard to nail down what you mean. There's a lot of times where you post at length seemingly implying Pro genocide positions, and then someone says wait you realize what you just said? And then you say you're being misinterpreted deliberately.

It makes it very hard to debate both intelligently and civilly when that's what you're hearing back. And I have a hard time believing everyone besides the two rabid Israeli sympathizers are misinterpreting you. There has been some rational and tempered counter arguments, but I think a lot of people lost the vigor to keep it up in the face of some seemingly transparent extremist opposition.

So you get when we are now where, yeah, I think some of the argument on the other side border on being kooky conspiracy stuff but do I have the energy to push back on those? Not really. Not when it feels like it's aligning me with people gaslighting genocide.

 

[narad]

I mean, I think some of the issue is that your arguments come across as inconsistent.

If five people cherry pick from my posts, which are often written in a sort of, "If not x, y" or "You can't have x, y, and z", etc., and start running down five different threads, concurrently, I have no doubt that this would come across inconsistent. I see inconsistency simply in how you've characterized my position.

My viewpoint has always been:
- Humans don't have a right to any specific piece of land
- Governments have a right to defend their citizens
- You don't fight injust systems through violence against innocents
- There is no original sin from which all blame derives -- both groups are guilty of plenty of suffering, and ascertaining the origin or ratio of this suffering is not important to resolving the situation now
- War is inherently injust / criminal / an atrocity

Some of them are very clearly Palestine bad, Israel good.

I've tried to stress many times that both sides have plenty blood (as well as other injustices) on their hands. There's no point in me posting any example of Israel being bad -- you all have that covered.

Some of them specifically call out Hamas. Some of them say civilians are okay collateral damage (though I think I've only seen that logic applied to Israel aggression toward palestine, but never the other way around?).

Not okay collateral damage -- expected collateral damage. I have tried to emphasize many times that there is no just way of waging war, that it is silly to pretend their is (though I think maybe through the way war is portrayed in media or even linguistically how we define terms, a lot of the population thinks of it that way). The idea of war being a sort of "okay thing" and a war crime being abhorrent is completely oblivious to the reality of the war, it should be insulting to anyone who has lived in city ravaged by war.

Some of them say no aggression towards civilians is acceptable.

Sounds good? I probably said something akin to "deliberate aggression"

Some of them say war is war, and it's a matter of superiority dictating outcomes.

Sounds factually accurate?

A while back, lots of them directly implicating Islam in violence, then saying it's not islamophobic when that's what it is by definition.

Yes, again I tried to clarify (pre-emptively when I was first posting about it) that the motivations in the region are a deeply intertwined mix of politics, religion, and history, but that all of these play an important role. Much of the calls to violence against jews are motivated by religious hate, and whether or not you think this is an unfair interpretation of Islam, it is the interpretation they're going with. That is not Islamaphobia. And even if you disagree with my conceptualization of the point, it is still not Islamaphobia.

So I mean, I think a bit of the confusion is that it's somewhat hard to nail down what you mean. There's a lot of times where you post at length seemingly implying Pro genocide positions, and then someone says wait you realize what you just said? And then you say you're being misinterpreted deliberately.

Yea, I shouldn't have to say I'm not "pro genocide". At this point I'm used to the same set of "genocide!" responses from the same people, typically not quoting anything, and certainly not quoting anything advocating for even the death of a single person. Meanwhile, the people saying that also said that the Israelis "reaped what they sowed" during the Oct 7th attacks.

When I argue points they're from a primarily historical / observational perspective, because ultimately these are the things that have dictated what chunk of land the country you're writing from calls its own. Meanwhile a lot of arguments in this thread are trying to establish a moral highground, and then act like a moral highground would or should dictate political outcomes here. A futile and foolish way to spend ones time, especially with these two groups of people in particular.

And when it's like 5-on-1, honestly there's a bit more due diligence owed from the majority to refer to exactly what I post and not embellish or make some implication and then argue against the implication. The bar for saying someone is calling for genocide should be fairly high. That there would be a very unambiguous call for the deaths of millions of people. You would think this would not be a point of contention between two people discussing something in good faith.

 

[TheBlackBard]

That if I'm getting accused of condoning war crimes, then my lack of a ban isn't due to a pro-Israel mod team (I think that was the insinuation of the prev poster)



Please, I don't want to deal with these Gen Z non-argument snapbacks.

Maybe it's a reflection on how disappointed in you we all are. It's a disappointment BECAUSE of who it is. That this many people, including myself, thought better of you, MUCH MUCH better, believe me, that's why you're getting responses that are a little more personal in nature, it's because we know that when you're using your brain, you're a top fucking notch poster, let's get that right. But this? This ain't it, man.

 

[narad]

Maybe it's a reflection on how disappointed in you we all are. It's a disappointment BECAUSE of who it is. That this many people, including myself, thought better of you, MUCH MUCH better, believe me, that's why you're getting responses that are a little more personal in nature, it's because we know that when you're using your brain, you're a top fucking notch poster, let's get that right. But this? This ain't it, man.

Well thanks, I guess? But frankly I don't mind taking a contrarian viewpoint and unless you're disappointed in everyone who takes a pro-Israel stance (which honestly would be an exaggeration of my personal stance on the matter), I'm not even aware of what one would be "disappointed" with. I definitely don't see Palestine as "the good guys". I definitely don't think they have any more right to that land than the Israelis, and while you would hope that these people could live together peacefully, it should not be surprising to point out that it's not working.

Meanwhile I'm disappointed/offended that anyone would accuse me of calling for genocide. Or gaslighting at genocide. I might as well just call you all anti-semites. I don't believe that, and I can't exactly point to where you're saying it, but well, can't we all infer that you're gaslighting that? (This is not serious -- I don't make these sorts of BS false claims of character just because you're making an argument I don't agree with).

And so that's really where some common sense should come in, in the minds who are commenting in that way. To defend this rationally (in the lack of actual discussion of my point) I don't think either side is free of guilt, and I don't think any side has any stronger claim to the land, so at high-level, I'm pretty close to 50/50 on who "should" be where. Now think about all the people with strong pro-Israel positions. Are they calling for genocide? No. That's fringe. So how crazy extreme do you think someone would need to be on this topic to entertain thoughts of genocide? The .1%? The .01%? Whatever it is, orders of magnitude more one-sided, orders of magnitude more invested in the topic than I am. Any impression that I'm strongly pro-Israel is probably just because I'm the only one who is taking the time to argue here in the otherwise circlejerk of sometimes extreme pro-Palestinian opinions. Extreme in the sense of viewing the October 7th attacks as being justified. Of comparing those attacks to the "good guys" in other rebellions. And yet it's being made out like a have a deep hatred for some group of people!

Separately in a 5-person group of expats where I discuss this I am the least pro-Israel of the group! So really to the people who say these things, (a) you shouldn't throw around these accusations lightly, (b) try pointing to something where I called for genocide (and consider whatever post or two directly in the thread that gives it context). I want to say some combination of grow up / learn to read, but I'm open to just having these posts with a strong bias (which shouldn't exist) + a mangle of different conversations happening at the same time + my more off-the-cuff posting style in dealing with a bunch of responses at the same time causing some confusion.

But then I get back to the islamophobia stuff, and it's like no, it doesn't seem like confusion. It just sounds like people are trying to be so super woke that they can't accept the reality of religion ::gasp:: being a motivation in calling for the killing of jews.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

For what it's worth (nothing), I always hate these sorts of "shame on you" positions on the internet.

I think @narad is just sort of being overly pragmatic about a difficult situation that doesn't really have a clean, reality based solution, and that's where we personally disagree.

It can be jarring when someone you usually agree with all of a sudden doesn't, but this is one of those issues that has a way of doing that.

So yeah, I think he's wrong-ish, but brow-beating about it isn't a good look either.

 

[narad]

I'll try this one more time in a simplified analogy that should get the core idea without any accusations of genocide (and then wake up to the inevitable shitshow), and focusing on things that will happen vs. what should happen, since that is roughly when everyone decided to treat me like a child. I'm going to oversimplify in a very pro-Palestine way so no one here has much to complain about:

You are watching your friend walking down the street. Your friend is 120 lbs with asthma and brittle bone disease. From the shadows emerges a 220lb musclebound thug who demands his wallet. The odds of your friend receiving a severe beating (and probably losing the wallet, too) if he resists is a certainty. The thug can possibly be reasoned with but appears especially hostile.

You yell, "You shouldn't be robbing him!". No one cares. You're also helpless in this situation, but you scream to your friend one of two options:
a) kick his ass!
b) give him your wallet!

Back to reality, ultimately, one of three things is going to happen:
1) Palestine is going to emerge better off.
2) Palestine is going to emerge roughly the same.
3) Palestine is going to emerge worse off

I can't fathom (1) happening in the short or medium term, and maybe not at all without the having triggered a larger conflict in the region with the neighboring players, which would make everyone's lives exceedingly bad for the foreseeable future. It also seems hard to imagine (2) is going to happen, since the shelling has been so destructive to a place that was already not much fun to live in. Which would leave us at (3). So you already had this place described as an open air prison, with contaminated water, spotty resources and infrastructure, lack of food, intermittent violence from Israel, etc. Now it's that and it's that with worse every-one-of-those.

So pragmatically speaking, I feel like some people in here would be shouting (a) because they feel that it would lead to what they believe is the most just outcome, or they like the story, or they're drawing false equivalences between this and events of their own country. But I can't see such a mindset leading to anything but suffering on a massive scale, maybe for decades more. So for your average Palestinian, is it worth forfeiting the good (i.e., a reasonable life somewhere) for a dream? And one that is by all rational assessment looking like an impossibility? It sounds romantic, and you can definitely cheer for Mel Gibson or whatever in similar stories, but we know those stories precisely because of how they ended. We don't celebrate, or even know in most cases, the stories of the people who fought for that dream when it was futile. And that is why in many cases when people are pushing for pro-Palestine, I think they're actually backing the worst option for Palestinians to satisfy their own ideals.

This is exactly the same thought as the last 4 pages or whatever. It is not pro-genocide.

 

[Randy]

For what it's worth (nothing), I always hate these sorts of "shame on you" positions on the internet.

I think @narad is just sort of being overly pragmatic about a difficult situation that doesn't really have a clean, reality based solution, and that's where we personally disagree.

It can be jarring when someone you usually agree with all of a sudden doesn't, but this is one of those issues that has a way of doing that.

So yeah, I think he's wrong-ish, but brow-beating about it isn't a good look either.

FWIW, I wasn't looking to wag my finger for "expecting more" of anyone.

We kept running into "I don't understand why people are misunderstanding me" when I don't think anybody was misunderstanding or misrepresenting anything. It was only confusing because it was alternating conflicting arguments, and a couple consistently problematic ones.

There's a couple guys in here I disagree with but they're consistent and own their positions. You can't act offended when people accuse you of being what you spent thousands of characters telling people you are.

 

[StevenC]

I'll try this one more time in a simplified analogy that should get the core idea without any accusations of genocide (and then wake up to the inevitable shitshow), and focusing on things that will happen vs. what should happen, since that is roughly when everyone decided to treat me like a child. I'm going to oversimplify in a very pro-Palestine way so no one here has much to complain about:

You are watching your friend walking down the street. Your friend is 120 lbs with asthma and brittle bone disease. From the shadows emerges a 220lb musclebound thug who demands his wallet. The odds of your friend receiving a severe beating (and probably losing the wallet, too) if he resists is a certainty. The thug can possibly be reasoned with but appears especially hostile.

You yell, "You shouldn't be robbing him!". No one cares. You're also helpless in this situation, but you scream to your friend one of two options:
a) kick his ass!
b) give him your wallet!

Back to reality, ultimately, one of three things is going to happen:
1) Palestine is going to emerge better off.
2) Palestine is going to emerge roughly the same.
3) Palestine is going to emerge worse off

I can't fathom (1) happening in the short or medium term, and maybe not at all without the having triggered a larger conflict in the region with the neighboring players, which would make everyone's lives exceedingly bad for the foreseeable future. It also seems hard to imagine (2) is going to happen, since the shelling has been so destructive to a place that was already not much fun to live in. Which would leave us at (3). So you already had this place described as an open air prison, with contaminated water, spotty resources and infrastructure, lack of food, intermittent violence from Israel, etc. Now it's that and it's that with worse every-one-of-those.

So pragmatically speaking, I feel like some people in here would be shouting (a) because they feel that it would lead to what they believe is the most just outcome, or they like the story, or they're drawing false equivalences between this and events of their own country. But I can't see such a mindset leading to anything but suffering on a massive scale, maybe for decades more. So for your average Palestinian, is it worth forfeiting the good (i.e., a reasonable life somewhere) for a dream? And one that is by all rational assessment looking like an impossibility? It sounds romantic, and you can definitely cheer for Mel Gibson or whatever in similar stories, but we know those stories precisely because of how they ended. We don't celebrate, or even know in most cases, the stories of the people who fought for that dream when it was futile. And that is why in many cases when people are pushing for pro-Palestine, I think they're actually backing the worst option for Palestinians to satisfy their own ideals.

This is exactly the same thought as the last 4 pages or whatever. It is not pro-genocide.

Mel Gibson, famous antisemite who still gets a lot of work. Meanwhile Susan Sarandon criticises Israel and her agency drops her.

People are literally asking Israel to give equal rights to Palestinians and they're saying no. That is what this conflict is about. Any Jewish person on the planet regardless of historical connection to that part of the world has right to return to Israel, but Palestinian refugees who still have the keys to their houses they were forced out of aren't allowed to return. This is a civil rights movement, and Israel doesn't care about non-Jewish rights.

But again, if your solution is Palestinians should give up and leave, that is an endorsement of genocide and a "might makes right" argument.

And because of the snide remark about me, Bloody Sunday happened at a peaceful civil rights protest, and that sparked the Troubles. If you think that's a false equivalence then you are being very ignorant.