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

[narad]

Oh no, I was simply pointing out the card you were going to play since you have nothing else to offer but pedantic criticism while at the same time offering non-realistic solutions.

Should have just played the card, man. You're trying to argue points no one makes. People in a war zone have the right to their homes, but that doesn't make it not a war zone (i.e., safe or smart to hang around in).

 

[TheBlackBard]

Should have just played the card, man. You're trying to argue points no one makes. People in a war zone have the right to their homes, but that doesn't make it not a war zone (i.e., safe or smart to hang around in).

And remind me who and why they're being slaughtered? Just want to see if you're willing to NOT victim blame. Makes me wonder what other situations you apply victim blaming to, and how much of this so called progressiveness is performative or if it just stops at war crimes.

Refugees should not exist. War crimes should not exist. Israel was in the qrong the moment they continued slaughtering indiscriminately, and the oppression that led to the attacks they are responding to. Anything short of that is victim blaming. Do we need flash cards?

 

[narad]

And remind me who and why they're being slaughtered? Just want to see if you're willing to NOT victim blame. Makes me wonder what other situations you apply victim blaming to, and how much of this so called progressiveness is performative or if it just stops at war crimes.

Yea, you can also fuck right off with that

 

[TheBlackBard]

Yea, you can also fuck right off with that

Something something, emotions, kiddie table.

Dodged everything else. Typical.

 

[StevenC]

Israeli forces kill three Palestinian fighters in West Bank hospital raid

CCTV captures undercover forces disguised as medics and nurses in the hospital with weapons raised.

www.bbc.co.uk

Surely we can all see the incredible irony here? At least a couple of war crimes in this incident.

 

[TheBlackBard]

Israeli forces kill three Palestinian fighters in West Bank hospital raid

CCTV captures undercover forces disguised as medics and nurses in the hospital with weapons raised.

www.bbc.co.uk

Surely we can all see the incredible irony here? At least a couple of war crimes in this incident.

Reading that is already disgusting as is to say nothing of 26,600 Palestinians that have been killed and it states those were mostly women and children.

 

[soliloquy]

this is disgusting:

Right-wing Israeli ministers join thousands at event calling for the resettlement of Gaza

Several ministers within Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing government were among conference attendees, with two delivering keynote speeches.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[soliloquy]

Reading that is already disgusting as is to say nothing of 26,600 Palestinians that have been killed and it states those were mostly women and children.

someone will justify that as "dont you mean 26,600 (actual number is over 30,000 as per Euro Med Human Rights report) Hamas fighters and Hamas sympathizers? AKA no such thing as an innocent Palestinian"

 

[Drew]

Right on cue with the mischaracterization derail.

At this point, you've been accusing everyone else in this thread for "mischaracterizing" you for upwards of, what, 30 pages now? At some point, if you can't articulate your argument clearly enough that there's no doubt exactly what you mean, you kind of need to own that.

And, honestly, when push comes to shove... the difference between "I think they would be better off over the next decade if they just left Gaza" and "they don't have the right to the homes or lands they're in now" is a REALLY fine hair to split, and just a matter of degree. You're pretending to leave them with a choice in the former while the latter explicitly recognizes Israel's actions are making life really, really, really unpleasant for Gazans.

So, are your words being "mischaracterized" as a derail, or are you derailing attempts to argue that what Israel is doing here is unconscionable by yourself derailing the argument into a highly semantic debate about the specific gradation on pressure on Gazans to leave the Israeli army is currently applying?

AND, since this whole thing is a derailment you're working hard to pull off, I'll reiterate that intent matters, and withdrawing aid in response to a UN order to stop blocking aid, is VERY hard to see as anything else than a "fuck you" to the UN for their order. Unless you're a Zionist zealot, I suppose.

 

[TheBlackBard]

someone will justify that as "dont you mean 26,600 (actual number is over 30,000 as per Euro Med Human Rights report) Hamas fighters and Hamas sympathizers? AKA no such thing as an innocent Palestinian"

"That's mischaracterization." -Someone

 

[soliloquy]

‘Criminal complaints’ filed against Israeli President Herzog in Switzerland

Swiss prosecutor confirmed the filing but would not reveal details about the nature and number of the complaints.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[soliloquy]

well then...

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/saar-says-hell-start-work-on-filing-genocide-case-against-iran-at-international-court-of-justice/

 

[Randy]

“Israel is a small and persecuted nation that is fighting for its life"

It's weird that this argument selectively rears it's head.

Sometimes Israel is a small defenseless nation. Sometimes it's a superpower that beat back all of the Arab countries in the region singlehandedly and it'll do it again. Sometimes they are financially self sufficient. Sometimes they need unlimited funding for weapons from the West.

Always a different perspective depending on what benefits them and when.

 

[Dudley]

The double-think required to believe that Iran is committing genocide but Israel isn’t must be exhausting, especially on a day with the kind of headlines and photographs/videos/audio recordings coming out as today.

 

[narad]

At this point, you've been accusing everyone else in this thread for "mischaracterizing" you for upwards of, what, 30 pages now? At some point, if you can't articulate your argument clearly enough that there's no doubt exactly what you mean, you kind of need to own that.

There's another option -- you don't want to characterize it properly. And given that in the middle of many posts saying otherwise, you characterized my point as "Israel did nothing wrong", then it's clearly that or a reading problem, and I'm leaning toward the former.

And it's clear the other guy is in a similar boat by describing it as "just move". And not just mischaracterizing it, keeping bringing it up with that mischaracterization. It's really just trolling at that point because it's trying to (or accomplishing in this case) derailing into rehashing that to the same outcome.

But if you went into some war torn area and said, jeez, we should support moving anyone who wants to move to a safer place, it is a "no duh" sort of progressive opinion. It is fought by conservatives who talk about border security into the other nations. And you apply the same logic here and suddenly the tables turn. If someone said, "hey, I know we did this with some success 99 times previously, but this 100th time, it's impossible. It's CLEARLY impossible. No! No talking about it!" you would think that would trigger some internal reflection. But yea, horse to water, etc. People are free to disagree, but you have a lot of precedence to overcome when trying to argue about the practical feasibility of helping in this way to some extent.

And, honestly, when push comes to shove... the difference between "I think they would be better off over the next decade if they just left Gaza" and "they don't have the right to the homes or lands they're in now" is a REALLY fine hair to split, and just a matter of degree. You're pretending to leave them with a choice in the former while the latter explicitly recognizes Israel's actions are making life really, really, really unpleasant for Gazans.

A really fine hair to split according to what, objectively? One is supposedly an objectively true observation not worth debating about according to some other poster here on your side of the argument, and the other is a principle we'd probably extend universally. But if you live in your house and over time the neighborhood becomes crime ridden and no longer safe, you have a right to your home, but it might not be so smart for you to be there if there are other options. All of these things can be true. They don't get split with a hair, they are simply different concepts altogether.

 

[TheBlackBard]

I believe the whole "get the fuck out of dodge" option given the economical logistics and the... you know... risk of a slight case of death from doing what they were advised to do, which I provided a source not good enough for some people (okay it's just one) compounded by the lack of overall support comparatively from people who think Israel is doing no wrong seems not a whole lot better than staying put, considering options are very limited given that many surrounded countries save for a select few (if they have the financial means to make the journey) are willing to take Palestinian refugees.

Must be awfully fun playing "dodge the bullets to a journey I may not survive regardless."

But that's already all been brought up by several different people and when brought up, the point is dodged, people get accused of misreading the ever ominous Narad with all his mystical knowledge. He's not wrong, just everyone else is misunderstanding him.

All five of us.

 

[narad]

I believe the whole "get the fuck out of dodge" option given the economical logistics and the... you know... risk of a slight case of death from doing what they were advised to do, which I provided a source not good enough for some people (okay it's just one) compounded by the lack of overall support comparatively from people who think Israel is doing no wrong seems not a whole lot better than staying put, considering options are very limited given that many surrounded countries save for a select few (if they have the financial means to make the journey) are willing to take Palestinian refugees.

Must be awfully fun playing "dodge the bullets to a journey I may not survive regardless."

But that's already all been brought up by several different people and when brought up, the point is dodged, people get accused of misreading the ever ominous Narad with all his mystical knowledge. He's not wrong, just everyone else is misunderstanding him.

All five of us.

Everything you've said would only be a rebuttal of the idea given extremely charitable interpretations.

So, first you mention the economic logistics. Gaza has historically been a huge sink of humanitarian aid, with something like 40 billion USD invested since the 90s, and this aid has not helped make the area any less of a burden to live in. Now post the destruction of infrastructure, there is exactly the same need as before + another massive investment to rebuild infrastructure and to scale infrastructure to the point where it could adequately cope with the growing population, which it hasn't in a long time. So in short, life in Gaza will be terrible unless a possibly unprecedented amount of humanitarian aid flows into in the extremely short term, regardless of what is going on militarily. And some of it of course has to go in there regardless, but in light of this, I think the idea of reallocating some of those funds to help refugees flee Gaza is a sensible suggestion.

Second, you mention the slight case of death. This is just the most bizarre point and I think not a smart think to rest on. In your argument, because you posted the one article about the time that Gazans were shot at for retreating when told to, this will be the case all the time, for all groups of Gazans, fleeing anywhere, under any circumstances? In a UN-backed refugee push to open a humanitarian corridor and allow refugees to flee, I find it hard to imagine Israel rolling some tanks up in there just to shoot people. It's kind of a cartoonish version of Israel, especially when people fleeing Gaza would pose less of a threat to Israel, and especially if it's primarily women and children, as would likely be the case. Similarly, it also seems like flawed logic because Israel is not hunting out people because they are fleeing. If someone is being shot at while fleeing, they would have presumably been shot at not fleeing. It also assumes these orders come from some high up military policy about shooting people, and not that in this one incident, there was a bad call, as there are in many military conflicts. Friendly fire being an obvious one. No one sees that and says, ah, the US is ordering US troops to kill US troops. There are plenty of just military fuckups. So if you want to push that further, you need to make the case that there is a credible threat to any Gazan refugees who want to flee (presumably with international backing), and that threat doesn't exist if they don't flee.

Third, you mention lack of support internationally. This is weird because so much of the argument to bring about change and why Israel would be forced into a ceasefire via international condemnation hedges on... there being international condemnation. So either there is widespread sympathy in a meaningful way that can influence the politics in various countries such that they can generate momentum to change Israeli policy, or that idea, which was argued in this thread by "your side" would be shown to be ineffective. By that same measure, that political change can also affect domestic policy on immigration and refugees. And, a lot easier than influencing Israel. So either the argument put forth by you guys earlier is wrong, or I that sympathy and change can also be used towards supporting refugees. And countries can always been persuaded to change policy not only by internal factors of its people, but externally, with incentives. Demographics also play a role. Historically neighboring countries have cited a reluctance to accept refugees from Gaza because of the likelihood of bringing terrorists into their country. But you can always prioritize the same women and children, where this is less likely.

In addition, it is unclear how many Gazans would want to move, or how many are needed to move to significantly reduce the burden on Gazan infrastructure. However, when you look at just numbers, there are many more significant refugee movements in recent history, sometimes hundreds of thousands of people. So one has to specifically show how you can move 10x the number of people in one scenario, but why with worldwide attention and support and a ton of money, it would be impossible to accomplish similar things at a far smaller scale with greater resources.

And on the flipside, there are some pretty strong economic arguments to make for why this is probably a necessity to some extent. Gaza's economy is not great. It is primarily textiles and farming and some remnants of construction. These industries have degraded over time, and yes this is in part due to the blockades restricting raw materials needed for such industries, but there is also a much more looming problem. Unlike neighboring countries, Gaza has really no means of scaling up a prosperous economy. They have little in the way of natural resources, which makes them unlike most of the Middle Eastern success stories. They have little in the way of education or computing infrastructure, which makes it very unlikely that they will be competitive in technology the way Israel is. In either of those cases, the countries can scale their populations up and still maintain jobs and a reasonable wage. Gaza on the other hand has 4x'd their population since 2000, while those sectors remain approximately the same or smaller, with little hope of scaling. The agriculture sector employs like 2x the people it did then, and yet the industry is actually smaller, and that is one of the more robust industries to external resources. That is an incredibly serious problem.

So if you do not support people fleeing Gaza, you must find a way that they can be self sufficient in that territory to develop an economy capable of supporting a population of that size, which seems really artificially inflated by external aid over the past several decades. This is why I don't want to waste time talking about Israel ceasing military action -- they're going to do what they're going to do and I pray that it is ultimately to root out Hamas with as little civilian casualties as possible. But if it's not that, they're still doing that regardless of what you say on a guitar forum. But as soon as there is a ceasefire, there is an immediately looming problem of potentially far greater civilian losses and general low quality of life with no end in sight, and it is not one that is fixed by just saying "Israel, go away".

This is also btw, why I support a one state solution ultimately. Because on one side, I think people have to live with their enemies to understand their similarities and to eventually let hate subside. On the other, Israel knows how to be a viable economy in a modern world. Israel knows how to support a growing population in a high standard of life. Gazans don't. And any investments in that cause now will gigantic, on top of general other infrastructure, with no generational knowledge whatsoever, and would take decades to pay dividends if even successful. So Israel has the career and development paths that young Gazans need to live prosperous lives, and beyond partnering up to some other nearby nation for similar, I don't see how life isn't shit for any Gazans, living in Gaza, in the status-quo or even in a fully independent state, with a population the size it is now, and an economy based on the traditional industries.

Or as you like to call it, "just move"

 

[TheBlackBard]

Everything you've said would only be a rebuttal of the idea given extremely charitable interpretations.

So, first you mention the economic logistics. Gaza has historically been a huge sink of humanitarian aid, with something like 40 billion USD invested since the 90s, and this aid has not helped make the area any less of a burden to live in. Now post the destruction of infrastructure, there is exactly the same need as before + another massive investment to rebuild infrastructure and to scale infrastructure to the point where it could adequately cope with the growing population, which it hasn't in a long time. So in short, life in Gaza will be terrible unless a possibly unprecedented amount of humanitarian aid flows into in the extremely short term, regardless of what is going on militarily. And some of it of course has to go in there regardless, but in light of this, I think the idea of reallocating some of those funds to help refugees flee Gaza is a sensible suggestion.

Second, you mention the slight case of death. This is just the most bizarre point and I think not a smart think to rest on. In your argument, because you posted the one article about the time that Gazans were shot at for retreating when told to, this will be the case all the time, for all groups of Gazans, fleeing anywhere, under any circumstances? In a UN-backed refugee push to open a humanitarian corridor and allow refugees to flee, I find it hard to imagine Israel rolling some tanks up in there just to shoot people. It's kind of a cartoonish version of Israel, especially when people fleeing Gaza would pose less of a threat to Israel, and especially if it's primarily women and children, as would likely be the case. Similarly, it also seems like flawed logic because Israel is not hunting out people because they are fleeing. If someone is being shot at while fleeing, they would have presumably been shot at not fleeing. It also assumes these orders come from some high up military policy about shooting people, and not that in this one incident, there was a bad call, as there are in many military conflicts. Friendly fire being an obvious one. No one sees that and says, ah, the US is ordering US troops to kill US troops. There are plenty of just military fuckups. So if you want to push that further, you need to make the case that there is a credible threat to any Gazan refugees who want to flee (presumably with international backing), and that threat doesn't exist if they don't flee.

Third, you mention lack of support internationally. This is weird because so much of the argument to bring about change and why Israel would be forced into a ceasefire via international condemnation hedges on... there being international condemnation. So either there is widespread sympathy in a meaningful way that can influence the politics in various countries such that they can generate momentum to change Israeli policy, or that idea, which was argued in this thread by "your side" would be shown to be ineffective. By that same measure, that political change can also affect domestic policy on immigration and refugees. And, a lot easier than influencing Israel. So either the argument put forth by you guys earlier is wrong, or I that sympathy and change can also be used towards supporting refugees. And countries can always been persuaded to change policy not only by internal factors of its people, but externally, with incentives. Demographics also play a role. Historically neighboring countries have cited a reluctance to accept refugees from Gaza because of the likelihood of bringing terrorists into their country. But you can always prioritize the same women and children, where this is less likely.

In addition, it is unclear how many Gazans would want to move, or how many are needed to move to significantly reduce the burden on Gazan infrastructure. However, when you look at just numbers, there are many more significant refugee movements in recent history, sometimes hundreds of thousands of people. So one has to specifically show how you can move 10x the number of people in one scenario, but why with worldwide attention and support and a ton of money, it would be impossible to accomplish similar things at a far smaller scale with greater resources.

And on the flipside, there are some pretty strong economic arguments to make for why this is probably a necessity to some extent. Gaza's economy is not great. It is primarily textiles and farming and some remnants of construction. These industries have degraded over time, and yes this is in part due to the blockades restricting raw materials needed for such industries, but there is also a much more looming problem. Unlike neighboring countries, Gaza has really no means of scaling up a prosperous economy. They have little in the way of natural resources, which makes them unlike most of the Middle Eastern success stories. They have little in the way of education or computing infrastructure, which makes it very unlikely that they will be competitive in technology the way Israel is. In either of those cases, the countries can scale their populations up and still maintain jobs and a reasonable wage. Gaza on the other hand has 4x'd their population since 2000, while those sectors remain approximately the same or smaller, with little hope of scaling. The agriculture sector employs like 2x the people it did then, and yet the industry is actually smaller, and that is one of the more robust industries to external resources. That is an incredibly serious problem.

So if you do not support people fleeing Gaza, you must find a way that they can be self sufficient in that territory to develop an economy capable of supporting a population of that size, which seems really artificially inflated by external aid over the past several decades. This is why I don't want to waste time talking about Israel ceasing military action -- they're going to do what they're going to do and I pray that it is ultimately to root out Hamas with as little civilian casualties as possible. But if it's not that, they're still doing that regardless of what you say on a guitar forum. But as soon as there is a ceasefire, there is an immediately looming problem of potentially far greater civilian losses and general low quality of life with no end in sight, and it is not one that is fixed by just saying "Israel, go away".

This is also btw, why I support a one state solution ultimately. Because on one side, I think people have to live with their enemies to understand their similarities and to eventually let hate subside. On the other, Israel knows how to be a viable economy in a modern world. Israel knows how to support a growing population in a high standard of life. Gazans don't. And any investments in that cause now will gigantic, on top of general other infrastructure, with no generational knowledge whatsoever, and would take decades to pay dividends if even successful. So Israel has the career and development paths that young Gazans need to live prosperous lives, and beyond partnering up to some other nearby nation for similar, I don't see how life isn't shit for any Gazans, living in Gaza, in the status-quo or even in a fully independent state, with a population the size it is now, and an economy based on the traditional industries.

Or as you like to call it, "just move"

Awesome. Now start citing sources like the rest of us have.

 

[narad]

Awesome. Now start citing sources like the rest of us have.

That's a good joke. If you find any claim hard to believe, google it, and you'll find it.

 

[TheBlackBard]

That's a good joke. If you find any claim hard to believe, google it, and you'll find it.

The things we post and have posted don't fit with your narrative, so it's a joke? And I'm the one trolling, right...

You realize this conversation has taken place before tonight, right? It doesn't all just disappear or a joke because you believe it is. And that's why you can't be taken seriously.

Funny how you had nothing to say about soldiers going undercover in a hospital with the express intent of killing, people, which by the way l, mentions how many women and children killed again? Or is that a joke?