|
Main Paineframe posted:On the other hand, recorded history. The excuse for Protective Edge, as I recall, was the kidnapping and murder of just three people in the West Bank. An ordinary domestic attack, nothing to do with rockets, but it was still enough to kill a thousand Gazans. Like I said, if the strong power wants to attack and is just waiting for an excuse, then they will find one. The question is not "if" but "when", and "when" is measured in "months" rather than "years". I'm not just talking Israel - the history of imperialism is just rife with cases like this, and it always ends up as an ultimately inescapable predicament. There's been tons of cases of that kind of unspoken ultimatum, and it almost always ends badly for the little guy. My personal favorites are when the little guy actually repels the initial invasion, treats the invaders humanely and lets them leave in peace in order to try and preserve diplomatic relations, and then gets obliterated by a far larger second wave because their foe simply could not tolerate the embarrassment of their glorious Empire losing to the natives. I'm not calling bullshit on you or anything but I am down to read about a few instances in recorded history where indigenous people actually prevailed over imperialist powers.
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:07 |
|
|
Ultramega posted:I'm not calling bullshit on you or anything but I am down to read about a few instances in recorded history where indigenous people actually prevailed over imperialist powers. Just off the top of my head there's Ethiopia vs Italy. Oh, and the Pueblo Revolt. But yeah, they both got smashed some years later.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Paine is right in the sense that pretty much every conceivable option is checked. Violence hasn't accomplished anything beyond hurting their standard of living and creating a permanent Likud ruling coalition. Europe and the rest of the region ultimately won't do anything, mostly because the Gulf hates Iran more than they hate Israel, which is quite a lot on both fronts. The peace process is sufficiently derailed, with Likud's settlement strategy unlikely to be reversed. There are no viable options, and the status quo is unlikely to change.Ytlaya posted:But Israelis are not black people in this analogy; they are the cops/white people. It makes literally zero sense to equate them with a racial minority, especially when the other group in question actually is a discriminated against minority within their country's borders. Israelis are not a victim in any sense of the word here; they have far, far more power and control over their society than Palestinians do. They're an ethnic minority within the space of mandate Palestine, and will be moreso if some posters have their wish and flood the region with hostile refugees. They're certainly a minority in the overall Middle East, with their neighbors teaching children to hate Jews from an early age in a way that far surpasses the horrible incidents of state propaganda within Israel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
The Israeli police even had reason to believe that the teens were already dead and no reason to believe anyone in Gaza knew anything about them, but that didn't stop Bibi from kicking off Protective Edge. It only became about rocket storages and terror tunnels when it turned out that the original justification didn't hold and the IDF wanted to escalate anyway. Are there any good sources about the first stages of Protective Edge? I remember reading about some 400 Palestinians being arrested without charge in relation to the kidnapping, including everyone released in a previous deal with HAMAS, but I've never been able to find out what happened to them after the case was solved.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:International pressure consists in every first world leader racing to be the first to loudly proclaim that Israel has the right to defend itself (Palestine, however, doesn't) every time Bibi decides to "mow the lawn" because his approval rate is falling down. This is completely divorced from reality. Every year the majority of countries in the world overwhelmingly vote in favour of recogning Palestine's right to freedom and independence. Last year it passed 165 to 6. I expect it to pass again by a similar margin. Countries and World Leaders frequently don't look at the situation the same way I would, but they don't all mindlessly support Israel. A lot of European countries are fairly anti-Israel and even in the USA the support of Israel isn't utter and total. Take the comment from kerry a couple of months ago when the attacks where starting up “Individuals on both sides of this divide are — have proven capable of, and in our view, are guilty of acts of terrorism.” Your view where you try and pretend this doesn't happen is nonsense. quote:1. They are Amalek This doesn't work for Israelis. I think a lot of Israelis have a somewhat warped view due to growing up on one side of the conflict and the propaganda they get fed, but they're not all religious fanatics. Some of them are anti-war and pro-peace while many more that support Israel's actions do so on the basis of them being retaliatory and just, part of the myth of the IDF being the most moral army in the world. If you take away their rationalisation, it becomes that much harder to carry out the same acts. quote:That's what has been happening recently, and the result was that Israel has encouraged vigilantism (aka lynch mobs) and decided to destroy the houses of every Palestinian related to a terrorist. Yes, what I am suggesting does not lead to Israel just sitting on its hands. What it tries to avoid is death ratios of 100:1 and massive bombing campaigns that ruin the entire economy of Occupied Palestine. quote:So what's the strategic upside of Israel bombing civilians even when they know they won't hit Hamas operatives? You're applying a nasty double standard here, where it's a propaganda success for Israel if Hamas commits war crimes against them, but a propaganda failure for Hamas (and also their fault) if Israel commits war crimes against Gaza. If any activity that could possibly injure civilians is a victory for the other side on the international stage, then I'm pretty sure every Gaza hospital bombing makes up for quite a number of rockets. And if you say that only Israel gets propaganda victories, then it doesn't matter what Hamas does because the deck is so badly stacked against them that there's little point in them trying to delay their defeat in that arena. I don't think there is a strategic advantage in the military sense. The rockets are so ineffective that Israel loses more men and money launching the large scale attacks then they do with the status quo and they don't manage to inflict any long-term damage to Hamas or its infrastructure. However that doesn't mean that it's mindless and they'll just do it regardless of context. It's politically motivated. They are being attacked by rockets and must be seen to do something, with bombing and artillery being viewed as an appropriate response by Israeli leaders and a good portion of the Israeli public. That isn't the case with other forms of resistance. When the stabbings started, did Israel launch massive bombing campaigns on Gaza to destroy their underground knife storage facilities? No, because that would obviously be insane and it wouldn't fly with many Israeli citizens, some of its politicians or a lot of the world at large. Look at the second intifada, Israel carried out large scale bombing of Gaza specifically in response to rockets when they started up in 2004. They didn't randomly bomb loads of homes to stop the demonstration violence, gun attacks or suicide bombs - it was specifically the rocket fire that was viewed as an acceptable rationale for bombing which then lead to hundreds of deaths including dozens of children. Israel puts a lot of effort into trying to look like the good guy and it does a decent job, because it should be openly despised. It might not be right, but they can make "We're being attacked with rockets and need to defend ourselves by bombing back" work both domestically and internationally, even if not perfectly. That does not mean they can make "A guy stabbed a soldier in the face so we had to blow up a Palestinian neighbourhood" work. Also I have no idea where you got the idea that Israel committing war crimes against Gaza is a propaganda failure for Hamas. Sure, it helps with propaganda, but it's something to still be avoided because of the massive amount of mostly civilian Palestine deaths. quote:You're asking the wrong question - it should be "who does it provide a net benefit to". Obviously the rockets are perceived by somebody as having a net benefit to themselves, otherwise they wouldn't be getting launched in the first place! What the hell do you think - that Hamas and other Gazan groups have this long list of things they can do that bring them benefit, but instead they're doing something that they don't perceive of as providing them any benefit at all? Hamas isn't doing so well that they can afford to throw away resources in order to do something they think just damages their strategic position. Yes, they obviously think it is a good idea or they wouldn't be doing it. I've explained why it's a bad idea and the alternatives available are better. Hamas can be wrong and I've explained why I think you are. If you you think I'm wrong and Hamas are right then you need to explain why, Hamas isn't full of such strategic masterminds that the mere thought of disagreeing with their strategy makes me obviously wrong. If their strategy is right then you need to explain why. quote:"It might have happened anyway" is actually a very important factor, because if a strong power is just looking for an excuse to bully or invade a weaker power, then it will happen sooner or later no matter how hard the weaker power tries to avoid giving that excuse. It's simply inescapable (and, if necessary, can eventually be provoked or faked by the strong power in order to manufacture the excuse), and pretending that the excuse was the cause or even a cause is little more than international victim-blaming. Why haven't Israel launched a massive bombing campaign killing thousands in response to the stabbings? Because these things don't happen free of context. Israel does not want to end its occupation and will fight it, but it's methods relate to the manner in which Palestinians form their resistance. The conflict is constant and ongoing. They don't need to invade or bully because they are doing that every single moment of every day with an ongoing illegal occupation and oppression of the Palestinian population, an ongoing never ending war crime. The issue is how up until Israel is forced to give the Palestinians their freedom, hwo they fight to try and maintain their occupation. quote:irst of all, Hamas doesn't have many other military options, and those that it does have are extremely limited and can only be done rarely, expensively, and at the cost of significant and often-unrenewable resources. They have alternatives I listed in my past post which they and Palestinian citizens/militants already use. quote:Second, being able to see the strikes against the enemy from your own front lawn has a significant morale component - for example, the Israelis who dragged out lawn chairs to party while they watched Gaza explosions from a hilltop. Ah, the old "I must commit war crimes and kill civilians and children to keep moral up" argument. gently caress you. Hoenstly the most worryuing thing is how throughout all of this people are just responding to me trying to defend this with strategy and tactical advantages and ignoring the moral and legal issues of loving killing innocent people. Not only that but do you have anything to suggest that it keeps morale up more than other much more effective methods which wouldn't result in the massive destruction to the Palestinian populace or are we just spitballing here. quote:On the other hand, recorded history. The excuse for Protective Edge, as I recall, was the kidnapping and murder of just three people in the West Bank. An ordinary domestic attack, nothing to do with rockets, but it was still enough to kill a thousand Gazans. Like I said, if the strong power wants to attack and is just waiting for an excuse, then they will find one. The question is not "if" but "when", and "when" is measured in "months" rather than "years". I'm not just talking Israel - the history of imperialism is just rife with cases like this, and it always ends up as an ultimately inescapable predicament. There's been tons of cases of that kind of unspoken ultimatum, and it almost always ends badly for the little guy. My personal favorites are when the little guy actually repels the initial invasion, treats the invaders humanely and lets them leave in peace in order to try and preserve diplomatic relations, and then gets obliterated by a far larger second wave because their foe simply could not tolerate the embarrassment of their glorious Empire losing to the natives. Nope, the kidnapping of the teens caused an escalation of tension and action and reaction between Israel and the Palestinians with Israel bombing Hamas and other militants and the militants responding with rocket attacks. It was those rocket attacks which gave Israel the excuse for Protective Edge. Over roughly a month the militants shot around 250 rockets into Israel, with the pace escalating and 80 of those being fired on the day Protective Edge officially began which lead of with an air campaign designed to halt the bombing before the ground forces moved in a week or so later. Couple quotes to back it up: 1:24 A.M. The IAF strikes Gaza targets in retaliation for the rocket fire. (Gili Cohen) 2:40 A.M. The IDF dubs the aerial offensive on Gaza "Operation Protective Edge." The airstrikes are targeting sites in the center of the Strip. (Haaretz) Israel will step up its actions against Hamas and the other terrorist organizations operating from Gaza as part of Operation Protective Edge, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Wednesday following security deliberations held in Beersheba. "The operation will expand and continue until the rocket firing on our cities stops, and the quiet returns," he said on the second day of the military operation. Netanyahu has consistently defined the objectives of the operation in relatively modest terms to restore the quiet" not, as some are suggesting, to topple Hamas or destroy its rocket infrastructure inside Gaza. Those later objectives would necessitate a ground action, something Netanyahu has said the IDF is prepared for, but which he has not yet ordered. The actual record shows that they don't just mindlessly bomb whatever, but that they specifically see it as the appropriate response to rocket fire. You seem to be married to this belief that you've pulled out your rear end that these large-scale attacks are inevitable and will always happen, that they're an indisputable fact of reality which isn't effected by any other factor in the entire world and cannot be in any way stopped or changed. It's so utterly reductionist that it remind me of the libertarian/objectivist points of view where they expound on some "fact of human nature" that they've made up like all people being driven and making decision based on self-interest and then make that the supreme fact that they can't get around. Israel does a lot of awful lovely stuff. If the Palestinians resist without rocket fire then Israel will still do a lot of awful lovely stuff. That doesn't mean the lovely stuff will include large scale ground attacks and bombings which kill thousands. You have done absolutely nothing to show that that if the rationale of rockets was removed those types of attack would continue, apart from some appeals to what you seem to consider the essential Israeli nature of always wanting to bomb all Palestinians no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Palestinian-Israeli opened fire on customers in a pub in central tel-aviv using a sub machine gun killing two and injuring another six, weapon was likely stolen from his father who is a volunteer in Israeli police, the suspect is allegedly an ISIS sympathizer, an attorney who previously represented the suspect claims he is mentally unstable. Suspect is still at large- http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.694926
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:The Israeli police even had reason to believe that the teens were already dead and no reason to believe anyone in Gaza knew anything about them, but that didn't stop Bibi from kicking off Protective Edge. It only became about rocket storages and terror tunnels when it turned out that the original justification didn't hold and the IDF wanted to escalate anyway. You've got this all wrong. While there is reason to believe the police knew beforehand and factss were misrepresented, it was announced the bodies of the teens had been found on the 30th of June a week before Protective Edge began on July 7th. As I explain in my above post it became about rocket storage in the time leading up to the start of Protective edge because the militant groups started firing hundreds rockets at Israel in response to Israel's actions, with the rockets rather than the teens specifically begin the rationale for the attack - which was later extended to the tunnels when there were unfounded worries about militants using them to attack Israelis villages. It was around 800 Palestinians arrested without charge, I believe, as well as about 10 killed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Palestinian-Israeli opened fire on customers in a pub in central tel-aviv using a sub machine gun killing two and injuring another six, weapon was likely stolen from his father who is a volunteer in Israeli police, the suspect is allegedly an ISIS sympathizer, an attorney who previously represented the suspect claims he is mentally unstable. Suspect is still at large- http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.694926 If this dude dies he is literally 1000 times more effective that firing a rocket at Israel (though gently caress him for choosing to target civilians) and I am willing to bet bet any poster here a banning that Israel will not use this attack as an excuse to bomb and kill 1000+ people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:If this dude dies he is literally 1000 times more effective that firing a rocket at Israel (though gently caress him for choosing to target civilians) and I am willing to bet bet any poster here a banning that Israel will not use this attack as an excuse to bomb and kill 1000+ people. You continue to tie rocket attacks and Israel attacking Palestine as if they are connected. Palestinian actions have nothing to do with Israel's aggression. As we could see during the ceasefire before Operation Cast Lead, even a 99% reduction in rocket attacks with Hamas actively suppressing the other extremist groups still was enough for Israel to cite for an invasion. If it were even possible for Hamas to stop all the rocket attacks Israel would just use something else as an excuse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:You continue to tie rocket attacks and Israel attacking Palestine as if they are connected. Palestinian actions have nothing to do with Israel's aggression. As we could see during the ceasefire before Operation Cast Lead, even a 99% reduction in rocket attacks with Hamas actively suppressing the other extremist groups still was enough for Israel to cite for an invasion. If it were even possible for Hamas to stop all the rocket attacks Israel would just use something else as an excuse. This. Hamas managed to, somehow, get other extremist groups to cut down on the rocket attacks after Israeli promised to soften the siege. Guess who didn't stick to their promise?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:Just off the top of my head there's Ethiopia vs Italy. Oh, and the Pueblo Revolt. Red Cloud won his war against the United States. Except the US government lied about the treaty and acted as if they had won even though they had lost and eventually Red Cloud lost everything and fled to Canada. Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee is such a good book, and loving heartbreaking too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:You continue to tie rocket attacks and Israel attacking Palestine as if they are connected. Palestinian actions have nothing to do with Israel's aggression. As we could see during the ceasefire before Operation Cast Lead, even a 99% reduction in rocket attacks with Hamas actively suppressing the other extremist groups still was enough for Israel to cite for an invasion. If it were even possible for Hamas to stop all the rocket attacks Israel would just use something else as an excuse. CommieGIR posted:This. Hamas managed to, somehow, get other extremist groups to cut down on the rocket attacks after Israeli promised to soften the siege. Once again your timelines are messed up. Hamas did stop 99% of rocket attacks on Israel for several months as part of a ceasefire On November 4th Israel launched an attack which killed several Hamas militants. It didn't view this as breaching the ceasefire because they were apparently involved in digging a tunnel into Israel, although both I and Hamas disagreed. In response Hamas and other militants increased its rocketfire a hundredfold (going from 1 rocket launched in October to 125 in November) and it was specifically in response to the rocketfire that Israel launched Cast Lead more than a month later after rockets continued to escalate in December. Once again it was specifically rocket fire that lead to the attack, exactly as I said. When there was no rocket fire Israel's oppression and violence were much more low-level and while that's not great, it did have the advantage of not causing thousands of civilian casualties. Not only that but again the rockets fired by the Palestinians were amazingly ineffective and were still war crimes that disproportionately targeted civilians. Israel gave Hamas the incentive to launch rockets with its attack, but it was the rockets which caused Cast Lead resuming in full force.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Israel had already invaded Palestine before the rocket attacks resumed. They just claimed that this invasion didn't count as a truce violation because *waves arms wildly*. This comes after what CommieGIR already pointed out, Israel never actually adhering to its side of the truce in the first place, which was to open up the blockade to allow material in to rebuild Gaza, as well as food and medicine. That never happened. It also agreed to halt all military raids into Gaza, which it blatantly broke multiple occasions before the rocket attacks started up again in November. None of the reasons for the truce breaking invasions involved rocket attacks, as they had already decreased to the point of non-existence. Israel doesn't need the rockets as a reason to invade. Fuck You And Diebold fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Jan 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:Israel had already invaded Palestine before the rocket attacks resumed. They just claimed that this invasion didn't count as a truce violation because *waves arms wildly*. This comes after what CommieGIR already pointed out, Israel never actually adhering to its side of the truce in the first place, which was to open up the blockade to allow material in to rebuild Gaza, as well as food and medicine. That never happened. It also agreed to halt all military raids into Gaza, which it blatantly broke multiple occasions before the rocket attacks started up again in November. The 'invasion' that you're talking about was a small raid that killed several militants which is to say not an invasion and thus you being completely wrong about your claim. The type of consequence I'm arguing about being a downside of rocket attacks is the thousands of casualties caused by a large scale attack incurred as a response. Think Cast lead or Protective Edge or the 2004 stage in the Second Intifada where they started firing rockets to Israel bombed hundred of people. They're two completely different things and the large-scale attack occurred after and as a direct response to the rocket attacks, exactly as I claimed, regardless of whether there was a small 'invasion' that killed several people before that - which also fits exactly with what I've said as I've pointed out that no large-scale attacks is not the same as no attacks several times. I am not saying that Israel is good or trustworthy or nice or currently willing to live in peace and harmony with Palestine. My point is that they launch the big attacks with thousands of casualties specifically in response to rockets, so that is one of many reasons to stop firing rockets. The timeline backs this up, with Cast Lead starting after the rockets did and in direct response to them. Your waffling bullshit where you try and equate seven militants dying to a thousand civilians even though it's only the latter we're talking about or boohooing about Israel being is a bad guy who breaks truces just completely avoids the point. People are going to die in the conflict, but the massive attacks which kill loads of Palestinians (predominantly civilians with lots of children thrown in the mix) only occur in response to rockets so that is just another reason not to use them. Edit: Who would have thought trying to argue "Hey, war crimes which kill civilians are bad and shouldn't be committed" would be so god drat hard? team overhead smash fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Jan 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:
Ah. Cool. So military intervention by Israel doesn't count. Why not also say that the uptick in rockets had nothing to do with hostilities, too, then?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:
Arguing war crimes are bad isn't hard, but that isn't your argument. Your argument as to why Palestine shouldn't use rockets is wrong and that's why you're having trouble.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
A Terrible Person posted:Ah. Cool. Seeing as the point being made is about large-scale attacks which result in thousands of casualties, exactly what the gently caress is a small scale attack that left several people dead supposed to matter in the context of the discussion being had?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
A Terrible Person posted:Ah. Cool. Foreign terrorists in a neighboring, underdeveloped nation are planning an imminent attack on your citizens. Within days, they plan to use terror tunnels, dug over months to years, fortified with reinforced concrete, to kidnap teenagers from your territory and hold them for ransom. The nominal governing body of the foreign territory maintains its calls for your nation's destruction and to drive your citizens "into the sea," which tempers your willingness to collaborate with them. Do you: A. Conduct a commando raid of foreign territory to kill those terrorists before they have a chance to kidnap your citizens B. Pass along the intel on those terrorists to the nominal governing body of the foreign territory, trusting that they don't actually mean it when they call for the same goals as the terrorists planning the imminent attack C. Do nothing, and, since your nation is a democracy with a free press, suffer electoral defeat from failing to uphold your oath of office and defend your citizens What other options did the Israeli government have? Unlike its neighbors, Israel is a democracy with democratic values and a free press which holds its leaders to account. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Seeing as the point being made is about large-scale attacks which result in thousands of casualties, exactly what the gently caress is a small scale attack that left several people dead supposed to matter in the context of the discussion being had? Oh, I dunno, using white phosphorus on a civilian center. Attacking UN sites and basically marking the entirety of Gaza as a rocket launch site. Need I go on?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Seeing as the point being made is about large-scale attacks which result in thousands of casualties, exactly what the gently caress is a small scale attack that left several people dead supposed to matter in the context of the discussion being had? Wasn't one of the points about rockets that they have almost no casualties due to their inaccuracy coupled with the Iron Dome? Seems like we've got a double standard here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:Arguing war crimes are bad isn't hard, but that isn't your argument. Your argument as to why Palestine shouldn't use rockets is wrong and that's why you're having trouble. You are a massive loving idiot. Have you actually been awake while this conversation has been going on or are you actually an Israeli Hasbara plant designed to make pro-Palestinians look as dump as possible? In each of my first three posts, the original one that started off this line of discussion and then my first two replies to you I specifically make the the argument that these are wrong because they're war crimes. I even start italicising those parts of my post to draw your attention to it because you keep on ignoring any moral or legal aspect of committing war crimes to kill civilians and focus only on the strategic and practicality aspects. "As a basic principle of warfare is to distinguish between civilians and soldiers, the usage of these weapons which do not distinguish and overwhelmingly target civilians is a war crime that cannot be condoned. That's probably my one major area of contention that sometimes comes up between me and other supporters of a Free Palestine. It's kinda weird that it's an area that the few hardcore zionists in this thread don't pick up on, although I suppose "Killing lots of civilians with bombs and rockets" isn't an area someone supporting Israel wants the conversation to drift towards seeing as Israel is way worse in that regard than actual bona fide terrorist groups." "When you view it in terms of the big picture and the results that come from it, the risks of firing rocket are absolutely appalling and the rationale of it being a strategic necessity absolutely falls apart. If trying to stab a soldier in the face resulted in a death one time in 10 and always resulted in the death of the Palestinian, it would still be a better strategy by an entire order of magnitude while not being a war crime that disproportionately targets civilians, including children. Frankly I don't care how effective firing rockets is, it's a war crime and is unsupportable even if it were effective. However it's not even that!" "Besides if all you can say is "If in this one particular way rockets may only be equal with other methods of attack rather than worse" then it's not really a reason to stick with rockets seeing as they still have separate disadvantages like being inherently a war crime." I'm the one that argued about them being bad because they're war crimes, you're the one that ignored it again and again and again and only tried to justify why they were practical. I have absolutely no idea how you can be engaged in this discussion and try to make the claim that I've never argued they were war crimes. A Terrible Person posted:Wasn't one of the points about rockets that they have almost no casualties due to their inaccuracy coupled with the Iron Dome? Yes, that was one of the points. I was also a completely separate point with the issue being a factor in a completely different context which has nothing to do with what I just asked you or was being talked about. So once again "exactly what the gently caress is a small scale attack that left several people dead supposed to matter in the context of the discussion being had"? CommieGIR posted:Oh, I dunno, using white phosphorus on a civilian center. Attacking UN sites and basically marking the entirety of Gaza as a rocket launch site. I think you've come into this half way without reading back and not understood the point or what's under discussion. The issue is one particular point I've made, which is that I contend that rocket attacks cause there to be large scale attacks like Cast Lead, Protective Edge that cause thousands of casualties and that one of several advantages to stopping rocket attacks and focusing on other forms of attack. He made mention of Israel attacking Palestine before the rocket attacks in Cast Lead, but actually that wasn't the case in a way that was relevant. A raid did happen over a month beforehand which really spurred the whole thing on, but it was only a small raid which killed several militants. It wasn't a large scale attack occurring before rockets were fired. It was therefore irrelevant to the point being discussed. My Imaginary GF posted:Foreign terrorists in a neighboring, underdeveloped nation are planning an imminent attack on your citizens. Within days, they plan to use terror tunnels, dug over months to years, fortified with reinforced concrete, to kidnap teenagers from your territory and hold them for ransom. The nominal governing body of the foreign territory maintains its calls for your nation's destruction and to drive your citizens "into the sea," which tempers your willingness to collaborate with them. Do you: I have positive proof that Israel is planning to commit war crimes against Palestine on the basis that it has been conducting them every second of every day for decades which has stretched on and caused tens of thousands of Palestinian casualties. I take it you therefore approve of all measures the Palestines take to stop these dastardly Israeli war criminals? Of course the main difference is that your scenario is imaginary and Israel never had such a rationale to attack or take any action while mine is real. Once again you focus more on the imaginary Israelis than the real Palestinians.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
One of the rocket's casualties was a Bedouin, which Israel co-incidentally didn't give a single gently caress about. Rockets are a war crime when they happen to hit, or land near, a Jewish person - other Israelis are not a huge concern.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Yes, that was one of the points. I was also a completely separate point with the issue being a factor in a completely different context which has nothing to do with what I just asked you or was being talked about. Fair enough. On the other hand, you seem to be suggesting that the isolated population of Gaza should start stabbing soldiers who they have no physical access to in the face rather than launching long-distance attacks which is utterly nonsensical in the context of the discussion being had.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Seeing as the point being made is about large-scale attacks which result in thousands of casualties, exactly what the gently caress is a small scale attack that left several people dead supposed to matter in the context of the discussion being had? Would you mind giving some exact hard numbers on what constitutes a "small scale" and "large scale" attack for future reference? Are medium scale attacks ok, or do we need to look at them on a case-by-case basis?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:The issue is one particular point I've made, which is that I contend that rocket attacks cause there to be large scale attacks like Cast Lead, Protective Edge that cause thousands of casualties and that one of several advantages to stopping rocket attacks and focusing on other forms of attack. This is specifically what I've been arguing against, using the fact that Israel attacks Palestine all the time without missiles as a reason given. The missile attacks do not cause large scale attacks, the large scale attacks are from Israel. If Israel actually wanted to deter missile attacks there are better ways of doing it (like adhering to their side of peace treaties). Israel uses the large scale assaults to oppress the Palestinian people, and in Bibi's case, apparently to drum up political support. team overhead smash posted:You are a massive loving idiot. Have you actually been awake while this conversation has been going on or are you actually an Israeli Hasbara plant designed to make pro-Palestinians look as dump as possible? Pathetic ad homs aside, this entire section of your post is unnecessary, you seem to be under the mistaken assumption that you need to convince people that the rocket attacks are a war crime. I have never disagreed with you on that. Keep tilting at wind mills and getting angrier though, it really adds to the rest of your argument.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:On the other hand, I think it's good that the Palestinians do fire rockets. For one thing, it feeds the narrative that Israel has to live up to that Palestinians are an existential threat (even though they clearly are not, any more than a caged dog is an existential threat to the person holding the key). Israel has to jump through so many, many hoops maintaining this lie and eventually they're not going to be able to do it anymore. Dr King and Gandhi taught non violence, and they won their struggles. I see there was a new terrorist attack in Israel today. Do you think it will help or hurt the Palestinians' cause?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
I'm an Israeli plant but my ultimate purpose is still a mystery
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Dr King and Gandhi taught non violence, and they won their struggles. Both horrible examples: Dr. King won his struggle by being beaten, arrested, violently oppressed, and then murdered. It was only though direct resistance that they managed to make any headway, and the fact that their enemies were willing to use VERY VERY violent and oppressive means to deter them that eventually got so macabre that the US Justice System and Feds said 'Enough is enough' Ghandi won his movement not through his own actions, but because the British were basically told they had to give up their Empire. It was rather inevitable, the British could not afford to maintain India as a colony anymore anyways, Ghandi's actions just made it easier for them to give it up. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Jan 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Avshalom posted:I'm an Israeli plant but my ultimate purpose is still a mystery Hopefully, to bear fruit in the form of delicious dates or figs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Dr King and Gandhi taught non violence, and they won their struggles. I don't think you're familiar with the Civil Rights movement or the Indian independence movement if you think they were entirely non-violent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
A Terrible Person posted:Fair enough. I never at any point said these were just for Gaza and I mentioned numerous tactics, including some like mortars just on military locations (mortars are quite different from rockets can be fired accurately onto military patrols, outposts and checkpoints along the border of Gaza so they cut out the issue of terrorising and attacking the civilian populace) that Gaza based militants already use effectively. Who What Now posted:Would you mind giving some exact hard numbers on what constitutes a "small scale" and "large scale" attack for future reference? Are medium scale attacks ok, or do we need to look at them on a case-by-case basis? The point isn't about whether different size attacks are 'ok'. It's about whether the large scale attacks which utterly devastate the Palestinians can be avoided while maintaining a policy of violent struggle against the Palestinians. The rationale for all of Israel's big operations like Cast Lead and Protective Edge have been stopping rockets. If militants attack using different methods and take away that rationale then it seems likely that the large scale attacks that Israel has so far reserved just for stopping rockets would no longer be used. While people would still die, the utterly ruinous attacks which cause thousands of mostly civilian casualties and utterly ruin the economy and livelihoods of people in Gaza would stop. Less death for the Palestinians, less destruction. Not an ideal, but still a good thing. gently caress You And Diebold posted:This is specifically what I've been arguing against, using the fact that Israel attacks Palestine all the time without missiles as a reason given. The missile attacks do not cause large scale attacks, the large scale attacks are from Israel. If Israel actually wanted to deter missile attacks there are better ways of doing it (like adhering to their side of peace treaties). Israel uses the large scale assaults to oppress the Palestinian people, and in Bibi's case, apparently to drum up political support. I know that you're arguing, it's just the lack of anything to back it up. I mean you tried referencing Cast Lead, but because you misunderstood the situation you didn't realise that despite a lull during a ceasefire the rocket attacks picked up again and the hundreds of rockets that were fired ended up being the rationale for Cast Lead when it took place - backing up my claims further. Now you've lost that you're not even bothering to present anything to back up what you're saying. I mean, how could you? Pillar of Defense, Cast Lead, Protective Edge, 2004 bombing during the second intifada, Summer Rains, Autumn Clouds, Hot Winter, etc, etc. As far as I'm aware, every single one of the big Israeli attacks since Qassams became a thing has been done on the basis of stopping missile attacks. You are right in that large scale assaults are there to oppress the Palestinian people. The thing is, so are the little tiny raids that kill two people. So are the oppressive non-violent laws. So is the lack of healthcare provision. So are a hundred other things. However only one of them has been used again and again as a rationale for large military operations that kill hundreds or thousands. Do you think that because Israel is going to oppress Palestine, the next time a Palestinian youth throws a rock at a soldier there's a chance Israel will respond by bombing five thousand Palestinians? That Bibi just rolls a die to see what he should do and it's only coincidence it's come up badly for rockets again and again? The context matters and you seem to be trying to reduce this to "Israeli bad, bomb Palestine always". quote:Pathetic ad homs aside, this entire section of your post is unnecessary, you seem to be under the mistaken assumption that you need to convince people that the rocket attacks are a war crime. I have never disagreed with you on that. Keep tilting at wind mills and getting angrier though, it really adds to the rest of your argument. You said I hadn't made the arguement about the awfulness of war crimes: "Arguing war crimes are bad isn't hard, but that isn't your argument." As I've shown in my last post that I'd actually made that exact argument several times and you were too dumb to see it, but by calling you out on it and and calling you an idiot you've finally halfway paid attention. Turns out calling you names works, so don't knock it! I mean you've still got it wrong, but at least you've finally noticed it. The point wasn't that they were war crimes, but that they shouldn't be carried out because they are war crimes. They ignore the concept of distinction; causing disproportionate death, damage and destruction to civilians that far exceeds any potential military objective. FYI the same basis is also why many of Israel's actions are war crimes, for instance wilfully bombing houses full of a dozen civilians because there was a militant there or they had 'intelligence' that there were weapons stored there. Such war crimes are inherently bad and there is no distinction as to whether the overall cause is good or evil in regards to how international law treats such crime. Legitimising Palestinian attacks on civilians only serves to legitimise all attacks on civilians, Israeli attacks on Palestinians inclusive. Of course that's the legal argument. The moral argument is that of course it's wrong to carry out attacks which kill more children (let alone civilians overall) than they do soldiers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Dr King and Gandhi taught non violence, and they won their struggles. Gandhi posted:'THE JEWS', BY GANDHI - FROM HARIJAN, NOVEMBER 26, 1938 Gandhi posted:Jews and Palestine, by Gandhi - From Harijan, July 21, 1946
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Gandhi posted:And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy which no number of resolutions of sympathy passed in the world outside Germany can. Indeed, even if Britain, France and America were to declare hostilities against Germany, they can bring no inner joy, no inner strength. The calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the godfearing, death has no terror. It is a joyful sleep to be followed by a waking that would be all the more refreshing for the long sleep. Kind of hard to justify Gandhi's position in 1938 that German Jews should have allowed themselves to be slaughtered by the Nazis rather than offer any resistance. I suppose it makes a sort of coherent sense in light of his sustained commitment to a radical pacifism. The great irony is when Gandhi's views on Zionism are introduced by the same crowd who angrily reject any suggest that Palestinians embrace non-violence, apparently Gandhi can also be portrayed as a kind of proto-Hamas member when it's convenient to use him to try to both condemn Zionism and to justify anti-Jewish terrorism. team overhead smash posted:Edit: Who would have thought trying to argue "Hey, war crimes which kill civilians are bad and shouldn't be committed" would be so god drat hard? Because you're trying to convince them that Israelis have comprehensible and sympathetic human motivations that can lead them to support unjust or disproportionate military and political acts, as compared to being a monolithic mass of bloodthirsty racists with no real goals other than the taking of as many innocent Palestinian lives as possible. The Insect Court fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Jan 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Kind of hard to justify Gandhi's position in 1938 that German Jews should have allowed themselves to be slaughtered by the Nazis rather than offer any resistance. I suppose it makes a sort of coherent sense in light of his sustained commitment to a radical pacifism. When the Palestinians have used non-violent methods like UN recognition you've complained about them then too. You don't agree with Palestinians using any methods to try and get their freedom.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:When the Palestinians have used non-violent methods like UN recognition you've complained about them then too. You don't agree with Palestinians using any methods to try and get their freedom. Why do you oppose protesting non-violent methods you disagree with through non-violent means?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Why do you oppose protesting non-violent methods you disagree with through non-violent means? When you're opposing human rights and promoting war crimes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:I'm not calling bullshit on you or anything but I am down to read about a few instances in recorded history where indigenous people actually prevailed over imperialist powers. There were very few instances where they won in the end, but there were some major battles won and some instances where the natives managed to hold out for quite a while. The one I was referring to specifically was the Anglo-Zulu War, made up of two major British invasions of Zululand. The first, an unauthorized attack carried out by local colonial functionaries with the ambition of conquering their own colony, was a disaster and utterly repulsed. However, the defeat of a British army in the field by African natives was simply not to be tolerated in Victoria's day, so the home country sent heavy reinforcements and orders for a second invasion which was taken far more seriously. team overhead smash posted:Why haven't Israel launched a massive bombing campaign killing thousands in response to the stabbings? Because bombing East Jerusalem is something Israel won't do under any circumstances, and investigations have failed to discover even the most tenuous link to organized groups or occupied areas that can be targeted for collective punishment. Hamas does not. Stabbings and ramming soldiers with cars is viable for residents of East Jerusalem, but not for Gazans. You're making the mistake of attributing all Palestinian tactics to Hamas, ignoring significant differences in resources, opportunity, and treatment. Mortars are more accurate than rockets, but much more difficult to get, especially considering Hamas' limited resources. So let me pose you a question here. You've asked why Hamas conducts rocket attacks as if you have no idea why, dismissed every reason offered as false or irrelevant, and seem to act as if Hamas has no possible reason for doing it. So, then, why do you think that Hamas does it? Why do they engage in the rocket attacks that you are so completely convinced there is absolutely no good reason for? team overhead smash posted:Seeing as the point being made is about large-scale attacks which result in thousands of casualties, exactly what the gently caress is a small scale attack that left several people dead supposed to matter in the context of the discussion being had? Rockets are small scale attacks that lead to, at most, a few casualties. So it seems that small scale attacks matter a whole lot!
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
You ascribe entirely too much import to Israel's stated reasons for invasion. Part of my point you have ignored is that Israel has shown that it will create reasons for invasion/attack/peace treaty violations when standard excuses are not at hand. Specifically wrt "large scale" (per your distinction) invasions, rockets have been one of a number of things that show up in Israeli statements as for the reason, but considering that they have a tried and true method for stopping rocket attacks (peace treaties), their hand waving about accidentally fatal blind rocket attacks as the reason for massively disproportionate bombing and invasions in Palestine ring a little false for anyone who has paid attention for longer than 5 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Because bombing East Jerusalem is something Israel won't do under any circumstances, and investigations have failed to discover even the most tenuous link to organized groups or occupied areas that can be targeted for collective punishment. Thank you, that's it exactly. There isn't some kneejerk reaction like people have been claiming where Israel automatically goes "MUST BOMB 1000 PALESTINIANS" to any provocation, it's based on the context of the attack and what is deemed as appropriate based on a host of different factors including internal and external pressure and the efficacy of any such measures. Now if the context of resistance changes to exclude as much of the rationale for large scale attacks as possible , dampen internal and external support for such measures and increase the consequences Israel faces for such attacks then the basic conclusion that any reasonable person must come to is that it will at the very very least make such attacks considerably less likely. quote:Hamas does not. Stabbings and ramming soldiers with cars is viable for residents of East Jerusalem, but not for Gazans. You're making the mistake of attributing all Palestinian tactics to Hamas, ignoring significant differences in resources, opportunity, and treatment. Mortars are more accurate than rockets, but much more difficult to get, especially considering Hamas' limited resources. At this point the approximately 10,000 rockets that Hamas and other militant groups have fired over the last 15 years have had the startling success of killing a single soldier. Mortars and tunnel attacks not only have the advantage of not being inherently war crimes that kill civilians and blacken the name of Palestinian resistance, losing them the international support they need and making it so much easier for Israel to retaliate with overwhelming force, but they are also more effective. Also while militants use mortars less than rockets, it isn't insanely less.They use rockets about twice as often as mortars so mortars are less common but not radically so. You might have a dated impression of Palestinian rockets. They've developed over time and gone from the bottle-rocket-like Qassam 1s which came up to your near to substantially larger Qassam 2, 3 and 4s which are as big or bigger than a person. They've also introduced professionally made rockets into their stockpile with the most common one being a GRAD, which incidentally is what was responsible for that single dead IDF soldier. quote:So let me pose you a question here. You've asked why Hamas conducts rocket attacks as if you have no idea why, dismissed every reason offered as false or irrelevant, and seem to act as if Hamas has no possible reason for doing it. So, then, why do you think that Hamas does it? Why do they engage in the rocket attacks that you are so completely convinced there is absolutely no good reason for? Well firstly, you asked this question a couple of posts back with slightly different wording and I've already made a reply that you've ignored. Secondly, it doesn't really matter. If the only thing that stands against the arguments I'm making is some inference of a vague strategic goal that you can in no way explain or back up, then am I or anyone else really supposed to take it seriously? Thirdly I don't really care why they think it's right. I've only asked that the benefit is to get posters here to try and rationalise any explanation, not because I wanted Hamas's specific explanation. For reference here's what I posted before: "I believe that what's effective for Hamas isn't what is most effective for the Palestinians. While I think that unlike Fatah they are truly working for Palestinian independence I believe that it has lost a lot of the militancy it had a decade or two ago and gained a good deal of institutional inertia where they focus on bettering Hamas to the extent that they prefer the methods that keep Hamas operatives safer because keeping Hamas operatives safe even if it causes massive collateral damage to the Palestinians population as a whole is preferable to them." Too add onto that that I'd also say that there are a couple of institutional blindspots with Hamas. Firstly they they believe that violence is the solution rather than a means towards leveraging peace (see Ireland, South Africa, etc) even though it's clear to everyone on the outside that they are never going to simply defeat Israel. This minimises the importance of abiding by international laws, not carrying out war crimes, etc. Secondly, due to the lack of a western institutional framework that they've been brought up in and the losses they suffer, I can easily see how killing Israeli civilians seems like justice rather than a horrific crime. quote:Rockets are small scale attacks that lead to, at most, a few casualties. So it seems that small scale attacks matter a whole lot! "Matters" in the context of that argument specifically refers to meeting the criteria of being a large scale attack with thousands of casualties. A small scale attack that leads to, at most, a few casualties, would therefore not matter in any way! gently caress You And Diebold posted:You ascribe entirely too much import to Israel's stated reasons for invasion. Part of my point you have ignored is that Israel has shown that it will create reasons for invasion/attack/peace treaty violations when standard excuses are not at hand. Specifically wrt "large scale" (per your distinction) invasions, rockets have been one of a number of things that show up in Israeli statements as for the reason, but considering that they have a tried and true method for stopping rocket attacks (peace treaties), their hand waving about accidentally fatal blind rocket attacks as the reason for massively disproportionate bombing and invasions in Palestine ring a little false for anyone who has paid attention for longer than 5 years. Your example is one of Israel making a small attack to stop what it viewed as a small threat, killing several militants to stop a single attack tunnel. It shows that Israel's responses are based on the context of the situation and is of an appropriate scale in the eyes of the Israeli government (as warped as that may be). This only backs up my point. Even if you think Israel is looking for any excuse to murder as many palestinians as possible at every opportunity, each opportunity does obviously not create the same opportunity for murder. A few militants in a single tunnel only warranted one attack that killed a few people rather than a massive month long bombing of downtown Gaza and it's only rockets which have again and again provided the rationale for these large attacks. Israel obviously doesn't want peace but it also obviously isn't attacking with it's full might (or even a large amount of might) at every provocation and there is a rough (if unjust and unbalanced) sense of scale to their response. Hundreds of rockets get thousands of Palestinian casualties.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:07 |
|
|
hakimashou posted:Dr King and Gandhi taught non violence, and they won their struggles. Gandhi was operating as the alternative to the real possibility of a bloody Indian army mutiny. That's probably not important though
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 09:30
|
|
