|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Feb 6, 2024 12:14:43 GMT -5
This is exactly the kind of logic the CCP uses to treat the Uyghur population as it does though. The presence and attacks of extremists gets used as validation of policy, after which they act all suprised that if you treat a lot of them as violent terrorists, they might as well support them. Just because the extremist ideology exists, it doesn't excuse or rationalize events. Hamas wasn't created in a vacuum, because Israeli opposition to the PLO is one of the reasons Israel supported the foundation of religious groups: theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/ |
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Feb 6, 2024 12:44:14 GMT -5
pacificFirstly, I don't think it is fair to say Ben Gvir is fringe when he is a current Israeli cabinet member, of security no less (despite having been convicted on terrorism charges against Israel). This is like saying Suella Braverman was fringe when she held significant power for months. The IDF is currently committing actions in line with his beliefs. In addition, support for Netenyahu himself is non-existent, but his right-wing allies have not taken the hit with him. I haven't seen any indication that they will be ousted along with him and the violence in Gaza has popular support. Secondly, I don't think that the UK population in WWII and the Gazan population today are comparable in that way. The UK was a powerful state actively defending itself against a peer. Its people (in Britain) were free. I think it is much more comparable to look at colonies, which often did have very violent uprisings and revolutions from vengeful oppressed populations, or Soviet Russia in WWII, which suffered much more at Nazi hands and was much mpre ruthless in return. I'm not condoning this, but oppressed people tend to hate their oppressors. Thirdly, I can see you do not think Hamas is capable of compromising. Maybe they are not. However, it hasn't been really tried in an actual compromise with an actual Palestinian state. Iran is also ruled by religious fundamentalists, and they compromised in the nuclear deal. This was broken by the US, not Iran.
|
|
nfe
OT Cowboy
Posts: 211
|
Post by nfe on Feb 6, 2024 14:57:57 GMT -5
Hamas hasn't held particularly well to ceasefires in the past, but then equally they've not been given more than "we'll stop shooting and bombing you, for now" with said ceasefires. Israel do actually stop shooting, however. I don't think Hamas have gone three days without firing rockets at civilians in about 15 years. Maybe there's been a week long break at some point? They obviously have leaders on record saying they will continue to launch October 7ths if they can as long as Israel exists. Their rockets are largely just an inconvenience for most Israelis (less so if you're in the south and have been in a shelter multiple times a week for a decade and a half) but it makes for a very easy political narrative: ceasefires are nonsense because they only apply to Israel - absolutely nobody expects Hamas to respect one. |
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Feb 6, 2024 15:02:59 GMT -5
Hamas hasn't held particularly well to ceasefires in the past, but then equally they've not been given more than "we'll stop shooting and bombing you, for now" with said ceasefires. Israel do actually stop shooting, however. I don't think Hamas have gone three days without firing rockets at civilians in about 15 years. Maybe there's been a week long break at some point? They obviously have leaders on record saying they will continue to launch October 7ths if they can as long as Israel exists. Their rockets are largely just an inconvenience for most Israelis (less so if you're in the south and have been in a shelter multiple times a week for a decade and a half) but it makes for a very easy political narrative: ceasefires are nonsense because they only apply to Israel - absolutely nobody expects Hamas to respect one. Right, but equally all that has been materially conceded to Gaza by said ceasefires is a stay on being bombed. The borders have remained under Israeli control. Hamas obviously are not helping their cause internationally by breaking said ceasefires and firing rockets at civilians is a warcrime, but they are firing those rockets out of a concentration camp. |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Feb 6, 2024 15:52:31 GMT -5
It's not like Israel doesn't get anything out of these 'ceasefires', high intensity wars in Gaza are costly, reduce international support and usually cost more Israeli lives than the events that triggered the latest round of conflict.
The 7th was certainly a terrible outlier to the above state of affairs, and it is understandable that Israel is resistant to arranging a ceasefire, but what is the end goal here? Certainly the Israeli government must realize that there is no true winning strategy, so a ceasefire is going to be the end result.
Of course this isn't a victory for Israel, but as a democratic state fighting a terrorist organization, it ends up that Israel has to be the 'bigger person' 9 times out of 10.
On a more personal note, this is the frustrating thing about Israel recently claiming any sort of (Western) critique is "*insert here* means you're supporting Hamas!". International norms and laws are meant to hold everyone to a higher standard (yes, even the West often fails to keep to it), going around shouting the equivalent of 'look what they get to do', when your opponent is universally recognized by your allies as a terrorist organization, isn't the argument they think it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by herzlos on Feb 6, 2024 17:57:59 GMT -5
So much worrying about what Hamas may do if the IDF stops trying to ethnically cleanse Gaza, so little care for the fact the IDF is currently doing it. Good to see some people here have their priorities straight. I think we're all pretty much concerned about the IDF genocide, but given that we're not in a position to stop it we're discussion what may resolve the whole mess. |
|
|
|
Post by herzlos on Feb 6, 2024 18:00:23 GMT -5
But is it relaxation of oppression or complacency? It seems the higher-ups in Israel ignored a lot of warning signs that something big was happening. It seems to be more that the events of the 7th transpired because the Israeli government was so complacent in the success of their perceived oppression than that it happened in spite of it.
The tin-foil hat wearer in me could easily be convinced that the Israeli Government knew an attack was coming and let it happen, since it'd give a pretty big distraction to local issues and further radicalize Israelies into supporting more genocide.
Of course there may be some middle ground, in that they knew something was coming but underestimated the size / effectiveness of it. I'm surprised they seemed to have completely dropped the ball on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Feb 6, 2024 18:05:01 GMT -5
This is not correct. At no point has Israel categorically stated that their goal is the destruction of a Muslim state and its people. Whereas it has been the stated goal both of Hamas (it is actually written in their founding statement) and from Iran, who are almost certainly supplying Hamas and attacking by proxy. Netanyahu may flog that horse at every opportunity for his own agenda, but he is not fabricating what has been the stated aim. So you have that fanatical fundamentalism on one side, which is calling for the destruction of a people - and this is why you can have sites of people celebrating in the street at the news of rape and murder coming out of Israel on October 7th.
Actions speak louder than words and Israel's actions are very clear in this situation. Their goal is a Jewish state with the Palestinians killed or forcibly removed and even when they aren't indiscriminately bombing everything that might be somewhere in the vicinity of a valid target they are building illegal settlements in occupied territory, restricting the rights of the inhabitants of territory they want, etc. "A plague on both their houses" is the most accurate description here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Feb 6, 2024 18:26:45 GMT -5
But is it relaxation of oppression or complacency? It seems the higher-ups in Israel ignored a lot of warning signs that something big was happening. It seems to be more that the events of the 7th transpired because the Israeli government was so complacent in the success of their perceived oppression than that it happened in spite of it.
The tin-foil hat wearer in me could easily be convinced that the Israeli Government knew an attack was coming and let it happen, since it'd give a pretty big distraction to local issues and further radicalize Israelies into supporting more genocide.
Of course there may be some middle ground, in that they knew something was coming but underestimated the size / effectiveness of it. I'm surprised they seemed to have completely dropped the ball on it.
From what came out afterward, it was indeed the middle ground. The Israeli government was blinded by hubris/complacency, while the build-up was observed. www.nytimes.com/2023/11/30/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-attack-intelligence.html |
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Feb 7, 2024 10:11:57 GMT -5
The IDF response to human shields appears similar to the Hannibal directive, in that human shields aren't a problem if you are happy to shoot the shield. If so then why is Hamas still using human shields? This is an unpopular opinion. The ugly truth of the matter is that Israel is the Occupier by choice. Israel also run an apartheid government (within Israel) by choice. Choice or necessity? Also, apartheid how? I genuinely can't see how Israel is under any existential threat from Palestine. Everything is so skewed in Israels favour. Technology, equipment, manpower. Hell Israel can cut off water/power/food to Gaza and the West Bank at a whim. You can't understand it if you don't look at history. They aren't right now. They have been an existential threat before and could become one again. |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Feb 7, 2024 10:38:16 GMT -5
Israel is extremely unlikely to be under a realistic future existential threat though, because nuclear weapons development by Israel ensures that such a scenario is a world ending. Groups like Hezbollah and Hamas don't have the power to do so and no neighboring state has the will (and power in the foreseeable future) to do so.
Israel as a whole/a state has convincingly won its regional war for survival for the foreseeable future. It just can't win regional peace without some large changes/concessions on its own and the opposing side.
Also, it is the occupier by choice on the West Bank for sure. There is no good reason to maintain the Israeli settlers there. It is in fact detrimental given the requirements to protect their illegal settlements.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Feb 7, 2024 10:39:39 GMT -5
The IDF response to human shields appears similar to the Hannibal directive, in that human shields aren't a problem if you are happy to shoot the shield. If so then why is Hamas still using human shields? Good question. I haven't seen a lot of evidence they have been in the current conflict, most of the evidence of significant operations under hospitals etc. seem weak at best. The best evidence for a claimed "Hamas command centre" the IDF could find at Shifa, for example, was a few AK-47s stuffed in duffel bags, and a fortified basement built by Israeli occupation forces in the 80's with a laptop. In a hospital. The childrens hospital had a basement with a "guard shift rota" that was actually just a calendar in Arabic. But either way, it is bad optics when the IDF brutally raids a hospital whereas the West already thinks Hamas are baby murderers, so I can see a rationale that it hurts Israel more than Hamas. I do think the apartheid comparison gets a bit mixed up. There is an apartheid-style system in the West Bank operated by Israel, Israel itself isn't apartheid. An active colonial project to settle the West Bank and displace Palestinians, with a military occupation to protect those settlements, is definitely a choice. Germany was once an existential threat to France. Spain was once an existential threat to the Netherlands. I'm not sure that is a good argument. Israel has overwhelming power compared to Palestine. I don't think it would be at increased risk within the 1967 borders and will probably be safer given their oppression of Palestine is generating hostile organisations like Hamas. Although it may see a rise in domestic terrorism again. |
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Feb 7, 2024 20:05:36 GMT -5
Israel is extremely unlikely to be under a realistic future existential threat though, because nuclear weapons development by Israel ensures that such a scenario is a world ending. Hamas very clearly showed a willingness to carry acts that would lead to a huge, massive number of Palestinian casualties. If they had the mean to destroy Israel, I don't think they'd be stopped by “What if Israel decide to use nukes”. |
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Feb 7, 2024 20:11:16 GMT -5
Good question. I haven't seen a lot of evidence they have been in the current conflict, most of the evidence of significant operations under hospitals etc. seem weak at best. I guess it just depends on which sources you trust then. Germany was once an existential threat to France. Spain was once an existential threat to the Netherlands. Not sure when Germany was an existential threat to France given that even when France decisively lost WW2 it still didn't stop existing, but nonetheless I wrote “could”. If you just allow Hamas to rule a country without any safeguard they will just have more resources to do the same kind of attacks. Israeli of course don't want that. |
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Feb 7, 2024 22:36:25 GMT -5
Israel is extremely unlikely to be under a realistic future existential threat though, because nuclear weapons development by Israel ensures that such a scenario is a world ending. Hamas very clearly showed a willingness to carry acts that would lead to a huge, massive number of Palestinian casualties. If they had the mean to destroy Israel, I don't think they'd be stopped by “What if Israel decide to use nukes”. Exactly. Nuclear deterrence requires an enemy that doesn't want to die, it has limited value against an enemy that considers martyrdom one of the highest virtues and regularly engages in suicide attacks. In fact, they would probably welcome a nuclear response by Israel because a likely outcome of that is the annihilation of Israel by every other nuclear power as a lesson to anyone else who might think of testing MAD.
And I disagree with Disciple of Fate's premise that use of nukes by Israel is world-ending. Who is going to launch a general nuclear attack on behalf of Hamas (or any other attacker)? The other nuclear powers have their puppets and interests in the region but it's not like, say, Russia is going to sacrifice its own existence to avenge the destruction of Iran. There would certainly be a lot of deaths in the region and disruption to the oil industry but there's very little chance it would expand beyond that.
|
|
