Sick sick world what is wrong with people

[ricky2tricky4city]

This "security" comes at the cost of immense suffering and the subjugation of the Palestinian people. It also doesn't actually bring security as others have pointed out and should be obvious. It's a continuation and escalation of what's already been tried and didn't bring security.

To you what is the example Israel should follow where this kind of thing has worked? What are the worthwhile comparisons to point to as a blueprint for making this work without a genocide?

You'll have to wait until Sunday for a reply....that's when Scara comes out to play his 'sport'

Looking down on the great unwashed from his ivory tower.

 

[scaramanga]

This "security" comes at the cost of immense suffering and the subjugation of the Palestinian people. It also doesn't actually bring security as others have pointed out and should be obvious. It's a continuation and escalation of what's already been tried and didn't bring security.

To you what is the example Israel should follow where this kind of thing has worked? What are the worthwhile comparisons to point to as a blueprint for making this work without a genocide?

I don't think there's been an equivalent situation so there's no success or failure to compare.

Your point only works if Hamas can make/train fighters faster than Israel can kill them. I'd bet heavily that they can't.

 

[scaramanga]

So they're being inefficient at genocide? Great...

Obviously not. They're clearly not even attempting genocide as it's impossible they'd be this bad at it given their resources.

 

[braineclipse]

I don't think there's been an equivalent situation so there's no success or failure to compare.

Your point only works if Hamas can make/train fighters faster than Israel can kill them. I'd bet heavily that they can't.

So no blueprint to follow. Where do you see it leading and ending?

I wasn't talking about the short term, the currently escalated situation. In the short term you're probably right. But in the long term I think this will only lead to easier recruitment for Hamas or similar organisations, as has been the case in numerous other situations. That's not a way to peace or security.

 

[braineclipse]

Obviously not. They're clearly not even attempting genocide as it's impossible they'd be this bad at it given their resources.

The lengths one must go to when defending the indefensible.

 

[scaramanga]

The lengths one must go to when defending the indefensible.

Allow me to rephrase in the form of a question then.

If Israel genuinely wanted genocide (and not just hyperbole being spouted by halfwits and their student politics), how long would it be until there was not a single survivor in Gaza?

A day? Two days? I could possibly even give you a week. But certainly not months. And they certainly wouldn't evacuate places of civilians before bombing them. Nor would they have risked their own troops by going in on foot or in vehicles. They'd have just flattened the place in a few hours and gone home for some gin.

 

[scaramanga]

So no blueprint to follow. Where do you see it leading and ending?

I wasn't talking about the short term, the currently escalated situation. In the short term you're probably right. But in the long term I think this will only lead to easier recruitment for Hamas or similar organisations, as has been the case in numerous other situations. That's not a way to peace or security.

I see it ending when the residents of Gaza vote for a secular leadership - that's the good result.

One that would work would be for the West to collaborate in stopping the funding going to Gaza. Both that which is donated for humanitarian reasons but spent on military means and that which comes from the likes of Iran.

 

[braineclipse]

Allow me to rephrase in the form of a question then.

If Israel genuinely wanted genocide (and not just hyperbole being spouted by halfwits and their student politics), how long would it be until there was not a single survivor in Gaza?

A day? Two days? I could possibly even give you a week. But certainly not months. And they certainly wouldn't evacuate places of civilians before bombing them. Nor would they have risked their own troops by going in on foot or in vehicles. They'd have just flattened the place in a few hours and gone home for some gin.

Genocide doesn't mean there not being a single survivor left in Gaza. I'm not saying that's what Israel are doing, obviously. I would guess even a half wit with their student politics would understand that this is not what I meant by the word.

There's quite a bit of pushback internationally already. I think Israel is well aware that there are things they can do and still have their allies with them and things that would be going "too far" even for the leaders of those allies.

I'm not saying Israel would flatten Gaza and kill everyone if they could just go be clear.

How far would this have to go before you would call it a genocide? At what point along the spectrum of atrocity would you be willing to use that word? How far would be too far in your mind?

 

[scaramanga]

Genocide doesn't mean there not being a single survivor left in Gaza. I'm not saying that's what Israel are doing, obviously. I would guess even a half wit with their student politics would understand that this is not what I meant by the word.

There's quite a bit of pushback internationally already. I think Israel is well aware that there are things they can do and still have their allies with them and things that would be going "too far" even for the leaders of those allies.

I'm not saying Israel would flatten Gaza and kill everyone if they could just go be clear.

How far would this have to go before you would call it a genocide? At what point along the spectrum of atrocity would you be willing to use that word? How far would be too far in your mind?

In order for it to be genocide (a very specific term) their actions would have to match that definition. Israel would have to be killing enough people to destroy that nation or group.

In order for the Palestinian people for be destroyed as a group, there'd have to be fewer than 10% left. Otherwise you could clearly argue that the Palestinian people still exist.

 

[braineclipse]

I see it ending when the residents of Gaza vote for a secular leadership - that's the good result.

One that would work would be for the West to collaborate in stopping the funding going to Gaza. Both that which is donated for humanitarian reasons but spent on military means and that which comes from the likes of Iran.

And until such a vote Israel are justified in continuing down the current path?

How is this different to what has been tried before?

After such an election will any of the legitimate concerns of the Palestinian people be handled with fairness? Or will it just be another generation of traumatised young men where some will be willing to do horrendous acts of violence to try to get back what they see as theirs, to punish those they see as their oppressors and colonisers? (If it isn't already obvious also known as a lack of security).

 

[scaramanga]

And until such a vote Israel are justified in continuing down the current path?

Attacking military targets, evacuating danger zones of civilians first, etc?

Yeah, not sure what else they can do. Other than just give up and let Hamas do the same again as many seem to wish.

How is this different to what has been tried before?

Hopefully this time they won't give up when other nations/leaders with particularly weak constitutions start bottling it.

After such an election will any of the legitimate concerns of the Palestinian people be handled with fairness? Or will it just be another generation of traumatised young men where some will be willing to do horrendous acts of violence to try to get back what they see as theirs, to punish those they see as their oppressors and colonisers? (If it isn't already obvious also known as a lack of security).

That depends. Israel's main problem is that many of the concerns of Palestinians (as shown by their electoral history) are not legitimate.

It's been stated for decades by Israel that Palestine simply has to stop attacking them and they'll be left to themselves. How about we try the very thing Israel has been saying will cause peace this whole time?

 

[Bullet]

@scaramanga, are you with Yakub?

"If I don't steal it, someone else will?"

‘If I Don’t Steal [Your Home] Someone Else Will’ Israeli Settler Justifies Forcible Takeover

"You are stealing my house."This is what a Palestinian woman told an Israeli settler, as he tried to take over her family's home in occupied East Jerusalem's...

youtu.be

 

[Bullet]

There is another video where a Jew is removing the fridge from a house he is stealing, and hands a bottle of milk to the man whose house he is stealing. He is surprised and disgusted that this man throws the milk back at him and his colleagues. What did he expect?!

And here is another. How can people do this sort of thing?

Palestinian family forced out of home in occupied East Jerusalem; settlers move in

A Palestinian family has been evicted from their home in occupied East Jerusalem, and Israeli settlers were allowed to move in.This happened a week after Isr...

youtu.be

 

[Lost Mango]

Attacking military targets, evacuating danger zones of civilians first, etc?

Yeah, not sure what else they can do. Other than just give up and let Hamas do the same again as many seem to wish.


Hopefully this time they won't give up when other nations/leaders with particularly weak constitutions start bottling it.


That depends. Israel's main problem is that many of the concerns of Palestinians (as shown by their electoral history) are not legitimate.

It's been stated for decades by Israel that Palestine simply has to stop attacking them and they'll be left to themselves. How about we try the very thing Israel has been saying will cause peace this whole time?

That just isn't true. Israel won't leave them alone in their own state managing their own affairs so it is nebulous BS.

 

[braineclipse]

In order for it to be genocide (a very specific term) their actions would have to match that definition. Israel would have to be killing enough people to destroy that nation or group.

In order for the Palestinian people for be destroyed as a group, there'd have to be fewer than 10% left. Otherwise you could clearly argue that the Palestinian people still exist.

And what source du you use to define this "very specific term". Having to kill 90%+ of a people for something to be considered a genocide isn't my understanding of the term.

And just to be clear, a long time before reaching that kind of atrocious outcome it would be an act of violence that the international community definitely shouldn't accept, condone or support.

Still wondering how far would be too far in your mind?

 

[braineclipse]

Attacking military targets, evacuating danger zones of civilians first, etc?

Yeah, not sure what else they can do. Other than just give up and let Hamas do the same again as many seem to wish.


Hopefully this time they won't give up when other nations/leaders with particularly weak constitutions start bottling it.


That depends. Israel's main problem is that many of the concerns of Palestinians (as shown by their electoral history) are not legitimate.

It's been stated for decades by Israel that Palestine simply has to stop attacking them and they'll be left to themselves. How about we try the very thing Israel has been saying will cause peace this whole time?

Not sure what you mean by "as many seem to wish"? Who are these many people wishing for another atrocity by Hamas?

Would you be willing to point out what you think Israel have done wrong in this conflict over time?

What would you consider to be legitimate concerns for Palestinians? Would you consider anything Israel has done in this conflict over time an attack? Or is it to you a history of Israel getting attacked and only defending themselves?

 

[scaramanga]

@scaramanga, are you with Yakub?

"If I don't steal it, someone else will?"

‘If I Don’t Steal [Your Home] Someone Else Will’ Israeli Settler Justifies Forcible Takeover

"You are stealing my house."This is what a Palestinian woman told an Israeli settler, as he tried to take over her family's home in occupied East Jerusalem's...

youtu.be

I have little sympathy with a group of people that start a war, lose a war, lose territory in that war, then want the international community to apply the law of takesies backsies.

I know your response will be that those people may not have voted for those that fought the war but that's democracy for you. We're about to have a Labour government that's going to do all sorts of unconscionable stuff and those that didn't vote for them will just have to live with it.

 

[scaramanga]

That just isn't true. Israel won't leave them alone in their own state managing their own affairs so it is nebulous BS.

Until we try that we'll never know.

It's the obvious first step though.

 

[braineclipse]

That just isn't true. Israel won't leave them alone in their own state managing their own affairs so it is nebulous BS.

I agree. Sorry for using your post as a jumping off point in what ended up being a wall of text...

I'm well aware that I'm using strong terms in this discussion, but I also think that's warranted.

To me it's difficult to separate what Israel have been doing from a colonial project. Less brutal and slower than many or even most colonial projects of the past. And to Scara's earlier point slower than they would have it was only that and unimpeded by other factors.

But at the same time. Expanding their borders, occupying and settling land. Mistreatment, displacement,starvation and the "open air prison" situation (not my strong term).

That's not to say all Palestinians are innocent. I in no way shape or form support or condone antisemitism, violence against Israeli civilians or wishes to remove Israel from the region. No doubts there are legitimate grievances and concerns on both sides. I quite dislike arguments on both sides of this that gives the impression of either side being innocent in this. Including arguments that Israel is only defending itself or doing what they have to do for security.


I think the current path only leads to more of the same and I would like the international community, and particularly the US as Israel's strongest ally to draw a line in the sand. To be clear about how far this will be allowed to continue. No such luck so far. I genuinely think this could lead to what will later be recognised as a genocide.

The only paths to security the way I see it is through real peace or through genocide leading to "peace" ("the Romans create a desert and call it peace"). I think it's an othering of Palestinians to believe that they can be forced to give up on both their legitimate and illegitimate concerns through violence and suffering without at the very least the real and ongoing threat of genocide.

There are examples in history of people "giving up" and it leading to lasting peace somehow. Historic enemies becoming part of the same nation for example. But in this instance that one is explicitly off the table.

That's why I've asked for an example that can be the blueprint here. Not the exact same situation, but something similar enough to be at least something that can be aimed for that does bring "security" over time. I just can't see one, I just can't see how this leads to good outcomes. I would really like to be pointed towards one, even an imperfect one, some outcome down this path that can at least be hoped for.

 

[scaramanga]

And what source du you use to define this "very specific term". Having to kill 90%+ of a people for something to be considered a genocide isn't my understanding of the term.

And just to be clear, a long time before reaching that kind of atrocious outcome it would be an act of violence that the international community definitely shouldn't accept, condone or support.

Still wondering how far would be too far in your mind?

the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
"a campaign of genocide"

I wouldn't consider a group destroyed if there were a reasonable proportion of them left. Hence my estimate.

Too far will depend on the actions of Hamas. If Hamas separate themselves from civilians then I think civilian casualties should be in line with that in any other conflict. If Hamas continue to use their own people as human shields, those casualties are on Hamas, not Israel.