Hamas attacks Israel with kit rockets and AK47's... US sends aircraft carrier in support.

[TheVat]

21 minutes ago, MigL said:

But lets return to 2005.
What did Gaza do with their newfound freedom ( except, of course, restrictions on importing arms, and exporting terror into Israel ) ?
Did the build resorts along their beautiful beaches, to bring in foreign ( maybe even Israeli ) currency ?
Did they drill for gas, within their limits of the South-East Mediterranean, an area rich in natural gas ( just ask the Israelis ) ?

No to all the above.

Gaza is under a multidecade land, air, and sea blockade.  Not conducive to beautiful resorts or letting oil companies or other developers in.  Gaza airport was demolished by Israel.  Border restrictions mean very limited access to Palestinians main urban center, East Jerusalem, or its agricultural resources in West Bank (what's left of them).  This is not really "newfound freedom."  

All this in spite of the terms of the Oslo Accord being that Israel must treat Palestine as one political entity.

On what planet would such gross violations of international law result in a prosperous economy for a small enclave effectively torn away from its other pieces and primary urban center of banking, education, foreign consulates and other services?  Even if Gaza were run by people better than the Hamas cretins, they would have no shot at the rosy alternate universe you paint.

[CharonY]

So the argument is that the Palestinians have screwed up and now everyone there deserves to be bombed?

I will also address some of your arguments, but again, these are not solutions but just an effort to place blame somewhere. As I note, you do not mention the West Bank, which shows that even without presence of Hamas oppressive activities happened. 

Now to your specific claims:

They did not drill for oil and gas, because they were in dispute with the Israeli government. While I believe the Oslo Accords place it under Palestinian jurisdiction Israeli forces have prevented access.

Building resorts, yes an isolated enclave with in a shaky political situation is clearly where tourist want to flock to. 

It is disingenuous to compare the Israeli blockade to a passport issue. They effectively restrict natural commerce and instead drove an active black market via the tunnels controlled by, you guessed it, Hamas.

I.e. Hamas is not only a terrorist organization but eventually became the main source of economic power in the region once they pushed out the PA and the blockade devastated the local economy.

I mean, it is clear to say that Hamas wields dictatorial powers and yes, perhaps the Palestinians, which fed up with the corrupt PA should have not chosen the radical alternative (though again, as we can see this is not a Palestine-specific tendency). But once they did Hamas established themselves, and inadvertently (or eventually intentionally) together with Israel, they created a system that makes them hard to dislodge them. So again, blame them if you want, but what do you think are their realistic options?

Edit: there have been past analyses by UNCTAD on the blockade and here is a recent re-iteration:

https://unctad.org/press-material/prior-current-crisis-decades-long-blockade-hollowed-gazas-economy-leaving-80

 

And now touching again on what to do: similar to the war on drugs, whatever the Israeli restrictions intended, the result was clearly not an ousting of Hamas, but instead resulted in solidifying their position by effectively making Gazans dependent to them (and again, with the help of the current Israeli government). So again, what are the options for Gazans? 

[TheVat]

10 hours ago, joigus said:

I'm glad that wasn't intended for me:

It wasn't.  I appreciate that you have sympathy for the plight of Palestinians.   

[J.C.MacSwell]

29 minutes ago, CharonY said:

So the argument is that the Palestinians have screwed up and now everyone there deserves to be bombed?

 

WTF?

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

WTF?

It wasn’t his intended point, but when reading MigLs post it could come across like he was saying that because the Palestinian parents screwed up 20 years ago it’s okay for Israel to lob missiles by the thousand at their children today. 

Edited December 15, 2023 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

56 minutes ago, iNow said:

It wasn’t his intended point, but when reading MigLs post it could come across like he was saying that because the Palestinian parents screwed up 20 years ago it’s okay for Israel to lob missiles by the thousand at their children today. 

CharonY puts together excellent posts, but he seems to fuck up reading other posters.

[iNow]

I read it similarly. Consider recognizing authors role in conveyance of intended / unintended points 

[J.C.MacSwell]

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

I read it similarly. Consider recognizing authors role in conveyance of intended / unintended points 

Is that because you want a repeat of the Holocaust? Because that's about as accurate as CharonY's assessment...and apparently yours also.

[StringJunky]

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Is that because you want a repeat of the Holocaust? Because that's about as accurate as CharonY's assessment...and apparently yours also.

We aren't looking to prevent another Israeli-focussed  'Holocaust', which is not the issue, we wish to avoid seeing a repeat of NAKBA 1948. 

Edited December 15, 2023 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

24 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

We aren't looking to prevent another Israeli-focussed  'Holocaust', which is not the issue, we wish to avoid seeing a repeat of NAKBA 1948.

...do you also feel or believe in characterizing Israel claim of a right to defend itself as "Palestinians have screwed up and now everyone there deserves to be bombed?".  Is it helpful in that regard?

For the record, I don't think you do, nor do I think CharonY does, and I think INow is just trying to defend it.

But that's one nasty take if anyone honestly believes it.

Fortunately the stakes on this forum are far less than for those charged with trying to solve the issue.

Edited December 15, 2023 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Is that because you want a repeat of the Holocaust?

Yes. Exactly. Golly, how nice it is to finally be understood. Are you clairvoyant? 

47 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

that's one nasty take if anyone honestly believes it.

Then why mention 2005 at all? It’s about to be 2024. 

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

WTF?

MigL whole point was that a) Palestinians put Hamas in power and failed to develop themselves out of the mess. In fact, he claims that they had many exit points but failed to utilize them (such as building resorts and get oil rich). 

How else should I interpret the overall point as, the situation is entirely their fault, they put Hamas in power so whatever suffering comes there way is no one else's fault. In other words, because Palestinians had these moral failures, they do not deserve a ceasefire in order to reduce the deaths that are currently accumulating. I.e. because Hamas did not adhere to agreements, therefore it is morally correct to have Palestinian (non-combatants) die. Note that I have nothing against decapitating Hamas, in fact, I do think that this is a necessary step. But I do not think that one can make the moral argument that this can be done at the cost of unchecked (or minimally checked) deaths of civilians. It was wrong during the Iraq war, and it is wrong now. Don't get me wrong, Hamas is in the wrong here. But even the fact that Hamas is so powerful is not entirely the Palestinian's fault as outlined above and I am fairly sure that especially children had little say in that matter.

As I mentioned in the beginning: can we agree that any outcome resulting in children dying should be considered morally wrong? And the answer it seems is no, we are able to justify it just fine. Sure, the actions happen in the context of self-defense, but still children and non-combatants die. And at least morally I am unable to make myself feel better about human suffering by identifying moral failures (real or perceived).

I fail to see how such an attitude does anything but to make it easier to allow suffering to happen to other folks

I should add that a ceasefire should not be seen (as many appear to in the internet ) as a taking sides moment (politics has become so stupid that I feel the need to express this). Rather, all reports indicate a humanitarian catastrophe with little resources, a massive death toll and worsening health situations. I don't care whether there is a ceasefire or other way to implement humanitarian help. This is not a team sport, folks are suffering and at least in the short term there is only one party that controls the situation. 

And even from an utilitarian view (also outlined above) it is not clear whether the large-scale war effort will have long-term positive effects. This is likely why the US has tried (perhaps with some irony) tried to rein the offensive in a bit. 

And I should also add that in the face of human suffering the glib statement that they should have used their beaches better just a tad on the a callous side (not to mention unrealistic).

And I also acknowledge that my attitude is inherently hypocritical. Obviously I only care about this particular conflict because I happen to discuss it on this forum and because of the news article I read. I know that I am not really doing anything against it, nor do I spend a similar amount of time to think about all the other ongoing conflicts. It is part of the human condition, we are unable to even mentally deal with the breadth and depth of suffering in the world. After I write my little diatribe I am going to make a coffee and go back to work. But at minimum I want not to feel good about it.

[MigL]

If I may clarify, I don't think anyone needs to be bombed for their actions, but the first several pages of this thread were decidedly one sided, and, while being shortly after Oct.7, still all the blame was put on Israel.
Do I need to mention the names of the participants in the first several pages, or can people go back and read it for themselves ?
I first engaged in this thread simply because it was so one sided, and I felt the need to provide a balancing viewpoint.
A few others have since joined in, and that is still what we are attempting to do; provide a balance with an opposing viewpoint.

This is NOT a one sided conflict and, other than the kids , there are no innocents in this conflict.
Whether active participants, enablers, or people who let the bad actors have their way, there's plenty of blame to go around, in Gaza and in Israel.

All I'm saying is Israel, and Jews, lost 6 Million people because the world didn't defend them almost 90 years ago.
They will defend themselves this time.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Then why mention 2005 at all? It’s about to be 2024. 

Because that's when Israel pulled out of Gaza, and established a 'security zone around it.
Do I need to post a wiki link to it ???

31 minutes ago, CharonY said:

How else should I interpret the overall point as, the situation is entirely their fault

No.
That was in response to your claim that only 'longshot scenarios' were being presented.
Clearly there are others.
But you, TheVat, String Junky, and ( possibly ) INow, seem to think the only way forward is for Israel to 'bow down', and absorb terrorist attacks from organizations/governments based in the Palestinian state of Gaza, and controlled by a third player.
I guarantee that is not going to happen.

.
So, by not considering other options, we are left with CharonY's other 'longshot' possibility; , because even you guys must realize that if Israel accepts a ceasefire this time, Hamas will do it again ( even worse ), and then it will be the end of Gaza and genocide.

[iNow]

7 hours ago, MigL said:

Because that's when Israel pulled out of Gaza

This doesn’t answer my question. 

7 hours ago, MigL said:

and ( possibly ) INow, seem to think the only way forward is for Israel to 'bow down', and absorb terrorist attacks from organizations/governments based in the Palestinian state of Gaza, and controlled by a third player.

That is not my position, nor have I posted anything which should reasonably lead one to conclude it is. 

To be transparent, I’m struggling to find my stance on this topic.

I do know the asymmetry in the Israeli response is only making things worse long term. 

[joigus]

13 hours ago, TheVat said:

It wasn't.  I appreciate that you have sympathy for the plight of Palestinians.   

I do. Believe me. Just yesterday a video appeared with the effects of bombing on a Palestinian kid that couldn't be older than 7 or 8 and I couldn't bear to watch it. What worries me most is that this kid (assuming he gets over PTSD, and such) will not join the forces of jihad some day, and a better future than that is in store for him.

That, and an immediate stop of rampant antisemitism.

And also the future of so-called progressive thinking, with re-examination of basic premises and careful separation of problems.

And...

[MigL]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

To be transparent, I’m struggling to find my stance on this topic.

I can sympathize.

We currently have one side that has little, if any, options left, and the other side which has options, but all available lead to equally bad, if not worse, outcomes.

If the UN had any balls, or wasn't hampered by bad members, the situation should have been rectified in the 50s, before it got more and more out of hand with each passing year.

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

If the UN had any balls, or wasn't hampered by bad members, the situation should have been rectified in the 50s, before it got more and more out of hand with each passing year.

I believe they're currently considering draft of a strongly worded letter. That'll do it. Done and dusted. 

[joigus]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

If the UN had any balls, or wasn't hampered by bad members, the situation should have been rectified in the 50s, before it got more and more out of hand with each passing year.

I can't stress enough how much I agree with this.

1 minute ago, iNow said:

I believe they're currently considering draft of a strongly worded letter. That'll do it. Done and dusted. 

Give it a couple of years and that letter will come through.

[CharonY]

9 hours ago, MigL said:

But you, TheVat, String Junky, and ( possibly ) INow, seem to think the only way forward is for Israel to 'bow down', and absorb terrorist attacks from organizations/governments based in the Palestinian state of Gaza, and controlled by a third player.
I guarantee that is not going to happen.

No, absorbing limited attacks was Netanyahu's tactic to keep the Palestinian's down. 

 

9 hours ago, MigL said:

So, by not considering other options, we are left with CharonY's other 'longshot' possibility; , because even you guys must realize that if Israel accepts a ceasefire this time, Hamas will do it again ( even worse ), and then it will be the end of Gaza and genocide.

And this the mindset that leads to more suffering. Again, how does an extended campaign now once for all end Hamas? How well did it go in the past? What about the next generation of Palestinians? It does seem that this strategy is replaying the same stuff over and over again. I am not saying a ceasefire will solve the problem, it is only a band aid to lessen the ongoing suffering. But saying that death now has to continue to stop a future Gazan genocide is odd at the very least. I will also add that I do not recall having called for ceasefire, just that a) there are no good guys here and b) that something must be done to stop the humanitarian catastrophe. Again, the focus on a singular action (ceasefire) evokes in my mind a sports team level thinking that calls to be entirely binary and I reject the notion. As before, my very basic level of reasoning is that actions resulting in the loss of innocent lives, regardless whether they are murders carried out by Hamas or unintended (but expected) casualties by military actions. One could (and maybe should) assign different levels of moral weight to them, but I feel uncomfortable trying the apply such judgements to innocent deaths as it feels to much like trying to justify them. Also, I think it is rather easily established why the onus of action (or inaction) is on the Israeli side, they have the power and there is little expectation of Hamas to do the right thing, they are a terror organization that hold their own (and other) people hostage. One could of course also put the onus on the Gazan people (as you seem to do) and ignore the system they live and grew up in. That is of course unrealistic as the system makes it very hard not to be funnel them into the arms of Hamas. 

I cannot say what the action should be, but in my mind it should be as limited as possible and at minimum connected with actions that save civilian's lives. That does not seem to be the case (and again, even the US, not famous for their restraint themselves, are calling for more limited actions). More importantly, the actions need to be accompanied by a long-term strategy for the day after, but apparently we have learned nothing form the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, did we?

If all we say that we should give carte blanche, because self-defence, what is the end point of the military action? Indefinite presence of the IDF? Displacement of Gazans into a even more confined area? As I mentioned before, self-defence is not an excuse to cause unlimited suffering especially with no clear endpoint. Not to mention that it is not an either/or situation. Also the situation has shown that the current strategy (see also the interview with the ex-IDF soldier) clearly has not worked. And continuing the cycle of violence will end nowhere (except perhaps when the Palestinians are eradicated). Each time folks will claim self-defence and what good does it bring except moral justification for violence? Hamas will certainly claim the same, and why we might not buy it, the kids whose family got killed, will certainly at least consider it.

The way forward is something else, though no one can really say what it might be. Again, the only thing we know is the current situation is not the right thing. 

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I can sympathize.

We currently have one side that has little, if any, options left, and the other side which has options, but all available lead to equally bad, if not worse, outcomes.

If the UN had any balls, or wasn't hampered by bad members, the situation should have been rectified in the 50s, before it got more and more out of hand with each passing year.

Well, as you know, we only have an UN because everyone wants it to be ball-less. The major powers would never have agreed to an organization that might decide against their interests . One could always blame (rightfully in some cases) the "bad actors". But depending on the situation and area in the world, everyone was a bad actor at some point. The US was instrumental in reducing the UN actions during the Rwandian genocide, for example.  That being said, not having a platform for diplomacy would be worse, but it certainly is frustrating.

[J.C.MacSwell]

12 hours ago, CharonY said:

MigL whole point was that a) Palestinians put Hamas in power and failed to develop themselves out of the mess. In fact, he claims that they had many exit points but failed to utilize them (such as building resorts and get oil rich). 

How else should I interpret the overall point as, the situation is entirely their fault, they put Hamas in power so whatever suffering comes there way is no one else's fault. In other words, because Palestinians had these moral failures, they do not deserve a ceasefire in order to reduce the deaths that are currently accumulating. I.e. because Hamas did not adhere to agreements, therefore it is morally correct to have Palestinian (non-combatants) die. Note that I have nothing against decapitating Hamas, in fact, I do think that this is a necessary step. But I do not think that one can make the moral argument that this can be done at the cost of unchecked (or minimally checked) deaths of civilians. It was wrong during the Iraq war, and it is wrong now. Don't get me wrong, Hamas is in the wrong here. But even the fact that Hamas is so powerful is not entirely the Palestinian's fault as outlined above and I am fairly sure that especially children had little say in that matter.

As I mentioned in the beginning: can we agree that any outcome resulting in children dying should be considered morally wrong? And the answer it seems is no, we are able to justify it just fine. Sure, the actions happen in the context of self-defense, but still children and non-combatants die. And at least morally I am unable to make myself feel better about human suffering by identifying moral failures (real or perceived).

I fail to see how such an attitude does anything but to make it easier to allow suffering to happen to other folks

I should add that a ceasefire should not be seen (as many appear to in the internet ) as a taking sides moment (politics has become so stupid that I feel the need to express this). Rather, all reports indicate a humanitarian catastrophe with little resources, a massive death toll and worsening health situations. I don't care whether there is a ceasefire or other way to implement humanitarian help. This is not a team sport, folks are suffering and at least in the short term there is only one party that controls the situation. 

And even from an utilitarian view (also outlined above) it is not clear whether the large-scale war effort will have long-term positive effects. This is likely why the US has tried (perhaps with some irony) tried to rein the offensive in a bit. 

And I should also add that in the face of human suffering the glib statement that they should have used their beaches better just a tad on the a callous side (not to mention unrealistic).

And I also acknowledge that my attitude is inherently hypocritical. Obviously I only care about this particular conflict because I happen to discuss it on this forum and because of the news article I read. I know that I am not really doing anything against it, nor do I spend a similar amount of time to think about all the other ongoing conflicts. It is part of the human condition, we are unable to even mentally deal with the breadth and depth of suffering in the world. After I write my little diatribe I am going to make a coffee and go back to work. But at minimum I want not to feel good about it.

That's a good post explaining your position but a far cry from supporting any characterization of anything anywhere in this thread suggesting "Palestinians have screwed up and now everyone there deserves to be bombed?"

[iNow]

Israel just had an oopsie and killed 3 of their own hostages.

Hard to get the rest of the world to give you a mulligan on something like that. 

Expect heavy negotiations in Qatar over the weekend and amplification of international pressure until operational tactics change. 

[MigL]

History, it seems, is not devoid of irony ... ...

"The Israeli military suffered five wounded and one killed; Yonatan Netanyahu was Israel's sole fatality of Operation Entebbe, and had led Sayeret Matkal during the rescue effort – he was the older brother of Benjamin Netanyahu, who would later become Israel's prime minister.^[21]"

From the 1976 raid on Entebbe, Uganda

Entebbe raid - Wikipedia
 

[Alysdexic]

On 12/11/2023 at 11:27 AM, CharonY said:

the erosion of democracy

Democraty is self-eroding. One of its main flaws is that it demands those in most power must represent and emulate those in least power, rather than an intellectual oligarchy from the most knowing. It must be done away with.

[StringJunky]

14 minutes ago, Alysdexic said:

Democraty is self-eroding. One of its main flaws is that it demands those in most power must represent and emulate those in least power, rather than an intellectual oligarchy from the most knowing. It must be done away with.

Intellect is no guide to societal stability. Intellectuals are not necessarily inherently good and accommodating to all viewpoints; they are as vulnerable to deceiving and self-deceit as anyone else.

[TheVat]

18 hours ago, iNow said:

Israel just had an oopsie and killed 3 of their own hostages.

Hard to get the rest of the world to give you a mulligan on something like that. 

Expect heavy negotiations in Qatar over the weekend and amplification of international pressure until operational tactics change. 

One of the more sad and horrible war stories I've heard, and that's saying something.  It's the kind of story that sends me back to my core opinion on human aggression: you cannot trust humans with anything more lethal than a stick.