|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:Ok, this is good. Now it would be nice if someone could convince Israel of this. One of the reasons this situation is so complicated is that neither side wants to admit that the other one's feelings(not necessarily actions taken as a result thereof) are legitimate, so respond in a way that only ingrains them on the other side. Basically what I'm saying is that if you want an actual peaceful solution, you need to consider Israel's side at least a little bit. If you want to just circlejerk about how they're evil and bad that's fine, just don't pretend you're contributing to a solution. The feeling that Palestinians are vermin who should be exterminated or driven off the land that is rightfully Israel's isn't legitimate though, even before we get into actualizing that idea. Congratulations, you literally made this argument in real life. Your username fits your gimmick very well. 
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
Israel's side is now being considered ... and now we are done considering their side because we give them like 50 billion dollars a year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:That's what I mean with the tribalism and groupthink. You read "do something about it" and assume it's a euphemism for what the IDF has actually done, whereas I mean it in the plain English sense of the phrase. Should Israel just ignore the rockets? They could, but all their leaders would get voted out, so they won't. They have to take some kind of decisive action about them, or they'll just get replaced by someone who will. So we've established that in reality, "ignore the rockets" is not a thing Israel can or will do. So the question then becomes at what point do they do anything about the rockets? I don't know, but I'd say 1 death is reasonable, but there's certainly room for debate here. The next question is what precisely should be done about them. I'm not a military expert so I honestly have no suggestions for what the IDF could be doing differently, but I'm reasonably sure they could tone it down quite a bit (again, not to "literally do nothing" levels though). We're assuming that "do something about it" means what Israel is doing because it's what Israel is doing, has done, and has given no evidence of doing anything but, even when there are no rockets being fired at Israel by Hamas. The reason that you're being assumed to be in favor of the IDF's actions is because your rhetoric actually sounds very familiar, both in terms of what the IDF has already said (and their flimsy excuses for bombing UN targets) and in that, given that Israel has broken its own ceasefires and created the new category of "ceasefire except where we're already shooting, which is totally a ceasefire you guys", you could very well say "Well, what did you want Germany to do, ignore the Jewish boycott of German businesses after a German boycott of Jewish businesses had already been called for?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:Ok, this is good. Now it would be nice if someone could convince Israel of this. One of the reasons this situation is so complicated is that neither side wants to admit that the other one's feelings (not necessarily actions taken as a result thereof) are legitimate, so respond in a way that only ingrains them on the other side. Basically what I'm saying is that if you want an actual peaceful solution, you need to consider Israel's side at least a little bit. If you want to just circlejerk about how they're evil and bad that's fine, just don't pretend you're contributing to a solution. Oh give me a break. The reason that Israel doesn't stop isn't because nobody has figured out some magic argument. The reason is because Israel wants to take the land that other people are on. There's not going to be a peaceful solution, because Israel has everything going it's way. There's no benefit for a peaceful solution to this, as long as the US keeps backing them, and given the 100-0 vote, I'd say that's a pretty safe bet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:Ok, this is good. Now it would be nice if someone could convince Israel of this. One of the reasons this situation is so complicated is that neither side wants to admit that the other one's feelings (not necessarily actions taken as a result thereof) are legitimate, so respond in a way that only ingrains them on the other side. Basically what I'm saying is that if you want an actual peaceful solution, you need to consider Israel's side at least a little bit. If you want to just circlejerk about how they're evil and bad that's fine, just don't pretend you're contributing to a solution. Let's consider Israel's side. The entirety of Israel belongs to their ethnoreligious group because it was promised to them by their deity, people have traditionally thought that it was promised to them by their deity, they need a special land just for them because goyim everywhere are prone to turning into genocidal monsters and cannot be trusted, and/or because they have the strength to take it. The locals are permitted to exist in Israeli territory as long as they passively accept second-class status, or on reservations on the outskirts as long as no invader wants their land and they otherwise stay quiet. Rockets are random outbreaks of incomprehensible insanity by vicious genocidal monsters who just cannot appreciate how much restraint the Israelis have provided. Everybody in the world who criticizes Israel is dangerously naive and gambling with their precious lives at best, but probably a bloodthirsty anti-semite. I have tried to be fair. Is this or is this not an accurate representation of Israel's side? What am I missing that factualizes or humanizes their position?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
AK I'm really surprised you'd swing for plucky lil' israel, you know what with you being so loving anti-gun that you'd support Israeli genocide over Palestinian token resistance?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:By the way, the person who recommended A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East, what's your take on the following 1-star review?. It's honestly been around 4years since I read it, but it's a book that does a good job of demonstrating the origins of Europe's relationship and attitudes towards the Middle East in general and Zionism in Palestine specifically more than anything. While I don't have my copy of the book on-hand to assess his quotations, I think they are taken from their context; the book mostly just demonstrates the ways in which European colonialism provided the ideological and practical foundations for the Zionist project. The Arab Awakening is the book you'll want to read for an account of Arab nationalism during the same period. As I mentioned in my earlier post, The Iron Wall is the better introduction to the historical situation, and with the background it provides, one should easily be able to navigate around some of the omissions or distortions in the book.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:No, using unguided weapons systems near civilians is not a crime, see: every war ever. Unless of course you really don't like the people using the unguided weapons systems. Nobody's arguing that all unguided munitions are necessarily war crimes. HRW is arguing, correctly, that launching unguided grad rockets at an urban area cannot be, as Hamas claimed, directed at military assets in that city because the unguided missiles are incapable of being targeted with that degree of precision. The special pleading that Hamas needs to be able to commit war crimes -- how else can they fight? Is not particularly convincing. They seem to be killing a lot more Israelis on the ground in Gaza than they've been able to kill with rockets. Unless you think Hamas used the rockets to goad Israel into invading?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:Ok, this is good. Now it would be nice if someone could convince Israel of this. One of the reasons this situation is so complicated is that neither side wants to admit that the other one's feelings (not necessarily actions taken as a result thereof) are legitimate, so respond in a way that only ingrains them on the other side. Basically what I'm saying is that if you want an actual peaceful solution, you need to consider Israel's side at least a little bit. If you want to just circlejerk about how they're evil and bad that's fine, just don't pretend you're contributing to a solution. To be fair if the conflict has shown anything, its that Israel's feelings are kind of illegitimate and gives in to the pragmatic need for land way before feelings get involved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:That's what happens when you're firing indiscriminately. Hey, I wanted you to know that I personally appreciate your participation in this thread. I pay particular attention to your posts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:To be fair if the conflict has shown anything, its that Israel's feelings are kind of illegitimate and gives in to the pragmatic need for land way before feelings get involved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:AK I'm really surprised you'd swing for plucky lil' israel, you know what with you being so loving anti-gun that you'd support Israeli genocide over Palestinian token resistance? If you want Israel to ever listen it would help to stop using loaded and inaccurate terms like genocide and ethnic cleansing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Barack Obama is considered an anti-semite popularly in Israel, you expect them to listen to reason?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
They need to be forced to stop. How that occurs is the reason so many throw their hands up in the air.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Barack Obama is considered an anti-semite popularly in Israel, you expect them to listen to reason? I don't know how else you're going to get them to stop doing terrible poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:As a complete outsider to israeli politics etc I think that it's maybe worth making a distinction between the actions of the government and the general feelings of the people. As I understand it the majority of Israelis lived in a time when suicide bombers were a thing and the rocket attacks weren't just spitballs, you know? The fear is no longer valid but the memory of the fear still seems to be guiding the public opinion. The government just seems to be exploiting that for votes/land/aid money. The government is led by party that historically was literally fascist and racist. While that certainly doesn't condemn the whole population, it certainly represents a portion of Israeli's.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Nobody's arguing that all unguided munitions are necessarily war crimes. HRW is arguing, correctly, that launching unguided grad rockets at an urban area cannot be, as Hamas claimed, directed at military assets in that city because the unguided missiles are incapable of being targeted with that degree of precision. That's irrelevant. Artillery isn't capable of being targeted with sufficient precision to hit motorcyclists with AKs without hitting inconvenient civilians or UN schools either, the assessment of legal experts is that's not a war crime. What is relevant is whether the attack serves a military objective, and whether the attack is being undertaken with the most discriminate weapons in your arsenal for accomplishing that objective. Again, citing this legal expert here. So - what is a war crime would be having smart bombs and choosing to instead use artillery to bombard a built-up civilian area to kill a couple foot soldiers. There is no legal problem with using unguided weapons, even if civilian populations are near. It's happened throughout the last century, it will happen in any future large-scale war. That is not problematic in and of itself, you're kinda pitching a fit about those savages using their savage weapons to fight back.  If only they had smart bombs like a proper military we wouldn't have to exterminate them Now again that's not how things should work, but if we're wishing then I'd prefer to focus on wishing for ethnic cleansing and genocide not to happen in the first place. Given the periodic "mow the lawn" stuff it's just not rational to expect people not to put up whatever useless token resistance they're capable of. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Aug 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:If you want Israel to ever listen it would help to stop using loaded and inaccurate terms like genocide and ethnic cleansing. If we are just nice maybe they'll stop hitting us.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:If you want Israel to ever listen it would help to stop using loaded and inaccurate terms like genocide and ethnic cleansing. Would it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:If you want Israel to ever listen it would help to stop using loaded and inaccurate terms like genocide and ethnic cleansing. They are doing both those things though? One more than the other, and one is often mislabeled as the other granted, but the main point is solid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:I don't know how else you're going to get them to stop doing terrible poo poo? Lots of ways: Divestment, cutting off aid, sanctions, force. We've been asking nicely for decades and they're the craziest they've been since Carter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:As a complete outsider to israeli politics etc I think that it's maybe worth making a distinction between the actions of the government and the general feelings of the people. As I understand it the majority of Israelis lived in a time when suicide bombers were a thing and the rocket attacks weren't just spitballs, you know? The fear is no longer valid but the memory of the fear still seems to be guiding the public opinion. The government just seems to be exploiting that for votes/land/aid money. Israeli "retaliations" have always been disproportionate and targeted civilians callously. It's true that the Israeli public had lived through some unpleasant and scary times in the past but these feelings which you've alluded to are actually born out of Israel's victim complex and the dogma that every act of violence perpetrated against a Jew by a non-Jew is a manifestation of latent anti-Semitism. Yes, suicide bombings were a terrible thing but if you view them in a wider historical context you'd see that they were in no way the 'beginning' of the hostilities and that Israel has done some lovely things to Palestinians over the years which might have contributed to the escalation of violence over the years; this worldview is in many ways considered heretical (or even treasonous) in Israel, you're automatically labeled a self-hating Jew and you're reminded that gentiles have never needed a cause to hate jews and that it's absurd to try to justify their clearly anti-Semitic actions by pointing to the existence of a vicious cycle that has been fueled by Israeli aggression for decades. The feelings of Israelis are illegitimate cause they represent a historical narrative that is greatly removed from reality and prevents any possibility of normalization and deescalation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:I don't know how else you're going to get them to stop doing terrible poo poo? Embargoes, war crime trials, and donating to Gaza-focused charities to keep it alive and capable of fighting back. Spreading the word and sharing compelling articles to help sow anti-apartheid public opposition within certain areas (called the US) that still aren't entirely against it. Turn Israel into a pariah state for as long as they are determined to maintain second-class citizens instead of forming a true democracy and ending aggression against its neighbors. A good number of those were crucial in ending the South African apartheid state. Being as moderately milquetoast as possible is not going to convince Israeli citizens that they are doing something the world has declared deplorable, and so long as there's no real losses in trade or relations the Israel government will not give up the opportunity to test out new military toys, shore up approval ratings, and grab more land.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:I don't know how else you're going to get them to stop doing terrible poo poo? That's kinda the thing. You don't. You're talking about how we should be more respectful and not use harsh language but you're not really showing any kind of real understanding of the problems in the situation and voicing some sort of milquetoast moderate concern troll. Using harsh terms isn't a major issue in this. Shooting rockets isn't a major issue in this. Those are simply things Israel says are issues, but fall apart when you examine their actions. Sometimes governments lie. I don't think you're going to find the correct catchphrase that makes Israel stop brutally oppressing the occupied territories. Because that's super naive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
In case someone was wondering how similar the pro-apartheid rhetoric of 25 years ago is to pro-apartheid rhetoric of now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:If you want Israel to ever listen it would help to stop using loaded and inaccurate terms like genocide and ethnic cleansing. Because Israel has been so understanding and compassionate when people haven't called their actions rightfully ethnic cleansing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
How's that ceasefire holding up? I thought the one they were under was running out of time by now, are negotiations still ongoing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Hamas is threatening to resume fighting if Israel doesn't agree to its demands, notably on allowing a seaport.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Stefu posted:In case someone was wondering how similar the pro-apartheid rhetoric of 25 years ago is to pro-apartheid rhetoric of now. Holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Hamas is threatening to resume fighting if Israel doesn't agree to its demands, notably on allowing a seaport. Dignity and some kind of autonomy for Palestine? Completely unacceptable terms, and the UN and its medics will pay for Hamas' hubris!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Israeli "retaliations" have always been disproportionate and targeted civilians callously. I agree with everything you've said and bow to your superior experience in this - but I was responding to people saying that the feelings of the Israelis don't matter/they're just out for the land/they're inhuman monsters. I see it's as a very very similar situation to south africa in the 80s; many Israelis seem to have valid fear for their safety because they've worked hard to make people want to kill them, and as part of that they've dehumanized the people they're oppressing. I don't think the legitimacy of the feelings matters, because (legitimate or not) those feelings have to be addressed for a peaceful resolution. Like, addressing the feelings can/should be done by convincing people of their illegitimacy. (also for people arguing genocide/ethnic cleansing, imo the "best" term is apartheid. a) it's completely accurate b) you don't have to get into the "but but they're not trying to kill ALL the palestinians" c) you can quote Desmond tutu etc calling it that)
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Holy poo poo Yeah, that's almost as pro-click as the ISISsy parody video. You can basically replace the racial/national terms and it's stunningly close.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:(also for people arguing genocide/ethnic cleansing, imo the "best" term is apartheid. a) it's completely accurate b) you don't have to get into the "but but they're not trying to kill ALL the palestinians" c) you can quote Desmond tutu etc calling it that) Attempting to stop semantic arguments by preemptively conceding them doesn't buy you anything. There's plenty of Israel apologists who will gladly argue that Israel doesn't count as "apartheid" because that term only refers to "South Africa 1948-1990" or there's some minute differences in implementation. You're still using a word with negative connotations, apologists are still going to resist it unless you sanitize your words into total inoffensiveness (in which case mission accomplished). Apartheid is really more of a description of Israeli Arab life anyway. Palestinians are clearly on a trajectory for not being a people in a few decades, so the terms "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide" are more descriptive, even if the implementation means they're not totally equal to Israelis in the meantime. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
I dunno guys, maybe language policing isn't the biggest problem in this conflict where a top world military backed by the most powerful nation in the world is killing a bunch of poor people penned into a tiny area while it steals their land.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Palestinians are clearly on a trajectory for not being a people in a few decades, so the terms "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide" are more descriptive, even if the implementation means they're not totally equal to Israelis in the meantime. I seriously doubt this. History has shown that group persecution strengthens social bonds and actually helps create an identity. The only way the Palestinians will stop being a people is if Israel kills them or forces them to assimilate into other communities. Israel isn't going to murder the Palestinian people wholesale unless the world goes completely insane, and their efforts to get them to absorb into the neighboring Arab states has also been met with abject failure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:I agree with everything you've said and bow to your superior experience in this - but I was responding to people saying that the feelings of the Israelis don't matter/they're just out for the land/they're inhuman monsters. I see it's as a very very similar situation to south africa in the 80s; many Israelis seem to have valid fear for their safety because they've worked hard to make people want to kill them, and as part of that they've dehumanized the people they're oppressing. Well, I think there's this thing where Israelis/pro-Israelis show up in this thread, and even if their intentions as individuals are not malevolent and they view themselves as moderates who preach peace and reconciliation they still feel some sort of obligation to balance out what they consider to be the pro-Palestinian bias in this thread. And yeah this thread isn't very tolerant towards Hasbara, however soft and 'well-intentioned' it might be and ultimately the pro-Israeli person finds himself in a shouting match having having to defend every single Israeli act of aggression over the course of history. Ilan Pappe says something to the effect that it is a pretty harsh awakening when you realize that you have a moral obligation to hate your homeland due to the atrocities it has been committing, acts which you've previously been taught to view as heroics you now view as barbarism. So yeah, as a pro-Israeli it's hard to come to places such as this, people keep telling you that you're defending war criminals and child murderers but for you it's just plucky old Israel, where you've grown up or where you went to birthright or even just a place that you've always considered to be a bastion of civility surrounded by vicious enemies etc etc. I don't know whether a softer treatment would yield better results, I certainly grow weary of the Thread Vs. Hasbara derails that occur every 5 pages or so, but I can attest that for me the 'harsher treatment' encouraged me to learn more about the history of the conflict and come to terms with the malevolent intentions that my country has towards the people of Palestine. I can see how for some people this will have exactly the adverse effect, and how yet for others either treatment will yield no change in their original positions. So it's a toss up really, and let's remember that for many posters in this thread this is also a place to vent their frustrations, do they really have to use sterile language to appease a small group of posters that occasionally show up around here? As for your final point regarding the 'name of the beast', Apartheid is also considered an anti-Semitic equivocation, "but Palestinians living within the 1948 borders enjoy equal rights" etc etc; Jewish exceptionalism doesn't allow equivocating the 'affairs of the jews' with historical occurrences that didn't involve Jews, every minute difference is cause for disqualifying the equivocation in its entirety. I prefer to just call it occupation but you have pro-Israeli hasbarists who argue that the situation can't be viewed as a proper occupation for ... reasons anyway, so it doesn't matter really. emanresu tnuocca fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Aug 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
illrepute posted:I seriously doubt this. History has shown that group persecution strengthens social bonds and actually helps create an identity. The only way the Palestinians will stop being a people is if Israel kills them or forces them to assimilate into other communities. Israel isn't going to murder the Palestinian people wholesale unless the world goes completely insane, and their efforts to get them to absorb into the neighboring Arab states has also been met with abject failure. Forcing them to assimilate into other communities is genocide, though. It's a less offensive way to destroy a group's identity. Palestinians will no longer exist as a people, they'll be Jordanians or Lebanese or whatever. Assuming those nations take them in the first place of course. Direct slaughter is not the only form of genocide. The Trail of Tears was a genocide, even if we didn't actually slaughter every last indian. Forced assimilation is a pretty common tactic that goes along with the general "destruction of identity and way of life" that actually characterizes most genocides. I agree that it's relatively unlikely that Israel just massacres everyone, but I can easily see there being an Israel "from the Jordan to the sea" (as Likud puts it) in a few decades. We've already got "reservations" that consist of walled ghettoes that are constantly compressed by settlement, and harassed both officially and unofficially to make day to day life impossible. Look how the Trail of Tears played out to see where this one leads. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Aug 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
HiredGoon posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvBZhe7nU2M I usually agree with many of his points and am currently reading his book "This time we went too far", but I didn't like the way he laughs off the Hamas rockets as "upgraded fireworks". Of course compared to the weapons of the IDF these are mere bottle rockets, but this is still no laughing matter, these things can and have killed people in the past. Don't misunderstand my comment, I am horrified by the 1:500 k/d ratio, this is only about Finkelstein acting as if the rockets are just large firecrackers and can do no harm. Further: if I understood his points in the interview correctly then Hamas uses these rocket attacks to lure the IDF into Gaza, in the hope of killing enough soldiers that the war becomes unsustainable for Israel, because 60-70 dead soldiers is a big deal when it comes to public opinion in Israel, which will in turn force them to negotiate. But does this not mean that Hamas understood perfectly well what such a ground offensive would mean for the civilians in Gaza ? That whole region is so messed up....
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 00:04
|
|
territory, but actually made an interesting point.
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Forcing them to assimilate into other communities is genocide, though. It's a less offensive way to destroy a group's identity. Palestinians will no longer exist as a people, they'll be Jordanians or Lebanese or whatever. Assuming those nations take them in the first place of course. I don't think he was saying that it isn't genocide, but that forcing them to assimilate into other communities has failed, Israel can't just up and violently wipe them all out, and the IDF don't think they can personally go in and drive them out, so they're going to exist and remain a Palestinian people in the near-future. quote:Further: if I understood his points in the interview correctly then Hamas uses these rocket attacks to lure the IDF into Gaza, in the hope of killing enough soldiers that the war becomes unsustainable for Israel, because 60-70 dead soldiers is a big deal when it comes to public opinion in Israel, which will in turn force them to negotiate. But does this not mean that Hamas understood perfectly well what such a ground offensive would mean for the civilians in Gaza ? I assume his theory is that Hamas was hoping that firing rockets in response to their bombs would spur a ground invasion, which would lead to IDF deaths, which would then spur a ceasefire that would end both the invasion and the bombings, thus saving more Palestinian lives in the long run. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Aug 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
Hammerstein posted:Further: if I understood his points in the interview correctly then Hamas uses these rocket attacks to lure the IDF into Gaza, in the hope of killing enough soldiers that the war becomes unsustainable for Israel, because 60-70 dead soldiers is a big deal when it comes to public opinion in Israel, which will in turn force them to negotiate. But does this not mean that Hamas understood perfectly well what such a ground offensive would mean for the civilians in Gaza ? It also contextualizes that a ground invasion is, barring a campaign with goals of violent ethnic cleansing and genocide that is too blatant to argue about, probably LESS harmful to civilians than the relentless seemingly random bombing. People on the ground have an actual chance to flee from ground troops; most of the offenses from ground troops weren't direct small arms shooting deaths of civilians (although plenty of that happened), it was mostly defilement of personal goods and property theft.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 00:11
|
|
