• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

[RD] War in Gaza: News Thread

Why should we?
I see the confusion. By "we", I meant "me", as in am I allowed to say anything besides "Its the US's fault!" over and over. I've no problem with you blaming the US over and over, you do you. I will note that I'm well aware of your position, and did not need (or request) further explanation. Your stance in this regard is pretty clear. Feel free to offer it over and over, but I'm pretty satisfied that I'm not unclear on your position.
Nobody's forcing you to read or contribute in this thread. You do it of your own accord.
:dubious: Huh? Why say this? What is your goal in pointing this out? Are you trying to inform me of something?
Presumably because you want something out of it.
Well, to put a finer point on it... I don't want anything in particular... from you. As I've said, your position is pretty simple and straightforward... "Its the US's fault", with nothing substantive to add. I've got the gist.
The fact that you find the answers disagreeable doesn't mean that you're not getting answers.
Not "disagreeable" my guy, just repetitive and a little boring... and not "the answers", just your answers... to be clear, others have given some very interesting responses/answers. You're angry/annoyed... I get that. But I'm not angry or annoyed with you... I'm puzzled as to why you keep stalking me, despite me telling you repeatedly, that my substantive questions (1. Why should the US help Gaza / abandon Israel to help Gaza?; 2. What can/should/does the NATO membership do to pressure the US on Israel?; and the new one 3. What have the other NATO members done, or can they do to pressure Israel on Gaza?) were not directed at you. I already know your response. You don't want to/can't answer any of those questions because your thought process stops at "Its the US's fault!". I get it, I've got it. No problem my dude.
 
Last edited:
Because it's the right thing to do, and the US claims that it does the right thing and has a values-based foreign policy
Yes, that is exactly correct, as in I believe that this what is treated as the "self-evident" reason folks feel justified in demanding that the US pressure/punish/abandon Israel to help Gaza/the Palestinians. I will concede that US policy/goals are sometimes coincidentally and/or incidentally aligned with what seems morally right.

However, I don't think I would be mis-stating the situation to say that underlying premise is a lie and you know that. Despite claiming to do so, the US, in-fact, does not necessarily "do the right thing" nor does it have a "values-based foreign policy" inasmuch as "values" means "doing the right thing" for its own sake. In truth, US policy is driven by national (and sometimes personal) self-interest.

So if you (the royal you) are willing to cynically accept, for sake of discussion, that the US's claims of heroically doing the right thing, are overblown at best and at a minimum, probably often disingenuous... then we can dismiss that reason and ask again:

1. Why should the US help Gaza / abandon Israel to help Gaza?
 
Last edited:
I see the confusion. By "we", I meant "me", as in am I allowed to say anything besides "Its the US's fault!" over and over.
You can say whatever you want (within the rules, etc). People can respond however they want (within the rules, etc). Why ask the question?
:dubious: Huh? Why say this? What is your goal in pointing this out? Are you trying to inform me of something?
You seem somewhat puzzled as to some or all of the responses you're getting. I'm trying to illuminate that for you a bit.
Not "disagreeable" my guy, just repetitive and a little boring
See above r.e. puzzlement. Nobody's forcing you to participate. You're choosing to be here, despite knowing most / all posters' existing opinions on the topic.

Personally, I find Israel's actions and the finger-wagging the US does in response to be "repetitive". I can't really say boring because of the staggering and horrific loss of life, the intentional targeting of historic and cultural institutions (that have nothing to do with Hamas), etc. But that's just me. Your mileage may / will vary.
But I'm not angry or annoyed with you... I'm puzzled as to why you keep stalking me
Buddy I was active in this thread way before you were, and I read every post in here. This is exactly what I meant by disingenuous. We can probably brainstorm some other words to describe this trend in your responses to folks (not just me), too :)
So if you (the royal you) are willing to cynically accept, for sake of discussion, that the US's claims of heroically doing the right thing, are overblown at best and at a minimum, probably often disingenuous... then we can dismiss that reason and ask again:

1. Why should the US help Gaza / abandon Israel to help Gaza?
I'll chip in with my opinion in case you haven't read me say this before: because the US claims that it does the right thing. Who cares if it's performative? Only be holding them to their claims is the performance unmasked; only by asking them to act by their professed values can we show the hypocrisy at play.

Bonus points, maybe they'll do something that causes some amount of harm reduction, however minute.

What's the alternative? Accepting that they won't? Giving up? Stopping talking about the ongoing atrocities? Would you like to offer some ideas, perhaps?
 
Last edited:
1. Why should the US help Gaza / abandon Israel to help Gaza?

From the point of view of realpolitik, the rise of what is essentially Nazism in Israel, annihilating neighboring populations to make lebensraum, will destabilize the middle east (leading to blowback like 9/11) and make the construction of an effective coalition against Iran impossible.
 
1. Why should the US help Gaza / abandon Israel to help Gaza?
As someone without detailed knowledge of the situation I'm not sure it should. I could maybe be convinced but I'm agnostic on it.

Although it could be presumed that there would be a boost in relations with most ME states, I'm not sure that's true. The religious conservatives in the ME are so awful I'm reasonably sure they'd continue to hate us just as passionately.

I'm not very knowledgeable about Hamas, but isn't destruction of Jewish people in their charter, or something? I suspect their views on LGBT rights, women's rights, rights to religious liberty, are disagreeable. Maybe even despicable, like terrorist organizations usually are.

They won't return the hostages; most polling demonstrates they enjoy majority Palestinian support. They gleefully brutalized the hostages. What's to like?
 
I'm not very knowledgeable about Hamas,

Hamas grew out of an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood and was supported financially and in other ways by the Israeli government as it was believed that the Islamists would prove a thorn in the side of the secular resistance.

Hamas exists as a military force only because of the Israeli occupation of Gaza. It is supported by most Palestinians only because it continued armed struggle against Israel after Arafat and the PLO surrendered to Israel unconditionally at Oslo. It is, in other words, a huge mistake to posit Hamas as some kind of manifestation of primordial barbarism among the Palestinian rather than as what it is, a completely predictable consequence of the theft of Palestine from its inhabitants by colonists.

What's to like?

Armed resistance against the Zionists.

They gleefully brutalized the hostages.

I haven't seen much concrete evidence of this. The media has made a big deal of the hostages being malnourished and traumatized, but every single person in Gaza is malnourished and traumatized right now. Current evidence indicates that Palestinian prisoners of Israel are generally treated much more harshly and indeed cruelly than the hostages have been. Which makes sense, since the hostages need to be at least a bit healthy to be valuable as bargaining chips.
 
Last edited:
The religious conservatives in the ME are so awful I'm reasonably sure they'd continue to hate us just as passionately.
This is funny because Israel is in the Middle East, and has (many) religious conservatives.
They won't return the hostages
Israel has faced significant internal criticism (indeed, more than any internal criticism over actions taken in Gaza) over their refusal to prioritise hostages.
most polling demonstrates they enjoy majority Palestinian support
That tends to be the case when the country next door is shelling Palestinians to death (I believe between 35,000 and 40,000 recorded deaths since October 7th alone). Not that Hamas has allowed an election in many years, but I'm reliably informed this is a normal thing that even democratic countries do when facing an illegal occupation and invasion.
They gleefully brutalized the hostages.
Israel have as well.

The difference is one is often called "the last democracy in the Middle East" and enjoys significant international support (despite many countries recognising that Israel's occupied territories are illegally-held), while the other is designated a terrorist organisation. Yet they seem far more similar in a lot of respects than anyone admonishing Hamas seem to want to admit.
 
You can say whatever you want (within the rules, etc). People can respond however they want (within the rules, etc). Why ask the question?

You seem somewhat puzzled as to some or all of the responses you're getting. I'm trying to illuminate that for you a bit.

See above r.e. puzzlement. Nobody's forcing you to participate. You're choosing to be here, despite knowing most / all posters' existing opinions on the topic.

Personally, I find Israel's actions and the finger-wagging the US does in response to be "repetitive". I can't really say boring because of the staggering and horrific loss of life, the intentional targeting of historic and cultural institutions (that have nothing to do with Hamas), etc. But that's just me. Your mileage may / will vary.

Buddy I was active in this thread way before you were, and I read every post in here. This is exactly what I meant by disingenuous. We can probably brainstorm some other words to describe this trend in your responses to folks (not just me), too :)
None of this is responsive to any of my substantive questions. My point was that I was clear on your position, the rest of the conversation between us didn't seem to add anything to that.
I'll chip in with my opinion in case you haven't read me say this before: because the US claims that it does the right thing.
Right. @Lexicus already said that, and I responded. I wish you'd said that earlier, but you were fixated on the non-substantive stuff.
Who cares if it's performative? Only be holding them to their claims is the performance unmasked;
OK so the US has been unmasked... as in the claim of "doing the right thing", being the world's altruistic Superheroes, has been shown to be false. We agree on that. Good job you. Anything else?

My point in this regard was that the "performative unmasking" of the US as you put it is somewhat disingenuous, and masturbatory... when you (the royal you) never believed the lie in the first place and neither did anyone in the discussion. Its just virtue signaling for its own sake, but I will acknowledge that by saying "who cares if its performative?", you are admitting to this so credit where credit is due. Your successful performance is noted. I witness you.
only by asking them to act by their professed values can we show the hypocrisy at play.
Not sure what you mean by "hypocrisy" in this context, but I guess it does not matter, since I get your general point. You see value and/or derive pleasure in dragging the US for peddling in disingenuous, idealistic pretenses/propaganda. I don't see as much value in repeatedly doing so, at least in this particular context, where its already been acknowledged.
 
None of this is responsive to any of my substantive questions.
In your opinion. It's kind of disappointing when you literally ask me a question, I answer it, and you say I'm not focused on the "substantive" despite directly answering a direct question. If your question was meant to be rhetorical or otherwise indirect, I feel like that's a you problem, not a me problem.
OK so the US has been unmasked... as in the claim of "doing the right thing", being the world's altruistic Superheroes, has been shown to be false. We agree on that. Good job you. Anything else?

My point in this regard was that the "performative unmasking" of the US as you put it is somewhat disingenuous, and masturbatory... when you (the royal you) never believed the lie in the first place and neither did anyone in the discussion. Its just virtue signaling for its own sake, but I will acknowledge that by saying "who cares if its performative?", you are admitting to this so credit where credit is due. Your successful performance is noted. I witness you.
You seem to be asking a lot of rhetorical or even sarcastic questions, but I appreciate that this time you actually explained the point instead of leaving it hanging. This is much better than your previous.

That said, nothing about my opinion is a performance, so we're back to disingenuous-ness (?) again, sadly. That's some kind of whiplash right there. Anyhow, the point is the US' actions being performative is irrelevant. The optics of foreign politics is often just as useful as the actual actions performed, because optics is part and parcel of diplomacy. I'm surprised you don't recognise that.

And that's without getting started on the whole conservative buzzphrase of "virtue signalling". Or the mixing up of "performative" and "performance" r.e. "unmasking". The unmasking is sincere. My opinion is sincere, and if you understood what "virtue signalling" meant you'd realise that this means the label isn't accurate. Virtue signalling was invented to describe something conservatives saw as performative behaviour. My behaviour is not. My opinion, Lexi's opinion I think, even your opinion is that the US' behaviour is.

So the "performative unmasking" (in your words, my actual words that mean something pretty different were "the performance unmasked") can't actually be disingenuous or "masturbatory" by definition. Someone can hide behind curtains, but that doesn't make the act of drawing back the curtains false. Does it?
Not sure what you mean by "hypocrisy" in this context, but I guess it does not matter, since I get your general point. You see value and/or derive pleasure in dragging the US for peddling in disingenuous, idealistic pretenses/propaganda.
Do you not? You seem to be phrasing my "general point" pretty negatively.
 
Last edited:
From the point of view of realpolitik, the rise of what is essentially Nazism in Israel, annihilating neighboring populations to make lebensraum, will destabilize the middle east (leading to blowback like 9/11) and make the construction of an effective coalition against Iran impossible.
I'll note that defeating/stopping evil, genocide, annihilation, etc., is just stronger wording of "doing the right thing". So I'll set that part aside and focus on the second part. It seems like the reason you are suggesting the US should US help Gaza / abandon Israel to help Gaza, is that allowing Israel to keep slaughtering and/or oppressing Palestinians will:
1. destabilize the Middle East
2. Cause another major (9/11-like) terrorist attack in the US
3. Prevent the formation of a coalition against Iran.

Now this is exactly the kind of thing I want to talk about, more specifically, hear from you about. I will start by saying I get the premise of all these, but I would appreciate you elaborating on why the Israel invasion of Gaza specifically will cause these three things. I generally like to hear what you have to say on these kinds of issues, so I won't say much in opposition to start, except, that I think you know (and I think you share) my position that the US wants a destabilized Middle East, and the irreconcilable Israeli/Palestinian situation obviously didn't start with 10/7 or this invasion... so that undermines point 1.
 
This is funny because is in the Middle East, and has (many) religious conservatives.
Israel has liberal, secular law on the aforementioned rights issues. Especially relative to most other ME countries.
Israel has faced significant internal criticism (indeed, more than any internal criticism over actions taken in Gaza) over their refusal to prioritise hostages.
Too detached from current affairs until recently to speak to this.
(I believe between 35,000 and 40,000 recorded deaths since October 7th alone).
Which is a predictable outcome of Hamas' actions. There is a point where Israel can go too far, but an invading the territory of a state that brutally raided you is standard human operating procedure.
Not that Hamas has allowed an election in many years, but I'm reliably informed this is a normal thing that even democratic countries do when facing an illegal occupation and invasion.
Do you really believe that hamas would consider forfeiting power under any circumstances?
Israel have as well.
Worth noting that chronologically the invasion of Gaza comes only after a particularly brutal raid
 
Do you not? You seem to be phrasing my "general point" pretty negatively.
Notice here, that you seemed to miss/skip the part of my post which answered this question directly:
You see value and/or derive pleasure in dragging the US for peddling in disingenuous, idealistic pretenses/propaganda. I don't see as much value in repeatedly doing so, at least in this particular context, where its already been acknowledged.
So we agree on some underlying factors... I'm just not as interested/focused on them as you are, and want to discuss other things. That's all.
Bonus points, maybe they'll do something that causes some amount of harm reduction, however minute.
As a result of you (the royal you) pointing out the US's dishonesty of motives? Because of what? Shame? If that's your position I understand it, but it does not seem plausible. It also seems contradictory to your underlying position. The US are such ***holes that they lie about wanting to do the right thing, for performative/propaganda reasons... but if you shame them over it... they will be forced to... live up to their... lies? Why? Why would the US be susceptible to being shamed in this regard?
What's the alternative? Accepting that they won't? Giving up? Stopping talking about the ongoing atrocities? Would you like to offer some ideas, perhaps?
This is a false choice (and some other terms I'll hold back on). You can discuss the substantive issues I've raised without giving up your right to talk about the atrocities.
My opinion, Lexi's opinion I think, even your opinion is that the US' behaviour is.
Yes, I think we agree on this. I don't think its worth arguing over the correct term for your behavior. I understand your position on it and it seems like you understand my position on it.
 
Last edited:
I'll note that defeating/stopping evil, genocide, annihilation, etc., is just stronger wording of "doing the right thing".

No it isn't. Nazism was morally wrong, and it was also against the self-interest of Germans, leading as it did to Germany in ruins and millions of Germans dead. These are distinct arguments.

I will start by saying I get the premise of all these, but I would appreciate you elaborating on why the Israel invasion of Gaza specifically will cause these three things. I generally like to hear what you have to say on these kinds of issues, so I won't say much in opposition to start, except, that I think you know (and I think you share) my position that the US wants a destabilized Middle East, and the irreconcilable Israeli/Palestinian situation obviously didn't start with 10/7 or this invasion... so that undermines point 1.

It isn't specifically the invasion of Gaza, it's specifically the current within the ideological structure of Zionism which essentially casts Israel and the Zionist project as infinitely good, and the Palestinians as infinitely and eternally evil. Part of this is the flat denial that Zionism is a colonizing project, something its early leaders (including Israel's founding fathers) were quite open and clear about. Revisionist Zionism, the main right-wing current within Zionism for most of its history, basically says: the Palestinians will never give up the fight because we are taking their own country away from them, and so Israel will need to rely on superior military strength. But the crucial second half was that eventually the Palestinians would realize the impossibility of removing or destroying Israel, at which point Israel would come to an agreement with them that would guarantee Palestinian security and civil and political rights. That second half has been jettisoned competely, with most Israelis no longer feeling bound to accept the physical existence of their enemies. In such an ideological environment the guardrails fall away and large-scale atrocities become inevitable.
 
Israel has liberal, secular law on the aforementioned rights issues. Especially relative to most other ME countries.
And? I wasn't talking about the rights tangent, I was commenting on the propensity for hating "us" r.e. religious conservatives. Not that we (in any Western country) don't have them homegrown as well!
Too detached from current affairs until recently to speak to this.
And yet you speak to Hamas' actions on exactly the same topic? Why?
Which is a predictable outcome of Hamas' actions.
Which is a predictable outcome of Israel's actions. It's true that nothing happens in a vacuum, but if your response to tens of thousands dead is to suggest that it's "standard human operating procedure", I'm not sure our morals are compatible in the slightest unfortunately.
Do you really believe that hamas would consider forfeiting power under any circumstances?
No. Why is that relevant? You talked about the popularity Hamas' enjoyed domestically, and I explained the reason for that.
Worth noting that chronologically the invasion of Gaza comes only after a particularly brutal raid
Which comes chronologically after years of planning that Israel somehow completely missed, after a notably brutal year or two for Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank generally (prior to October 7th), etc, et al. Your comment here reads as an attempt at a justification - why?

And surely, shouldn't our expectations for the "only democracy in the Middle East" be higher than they are for Hamas?
 
No it isn't. Nazism was morally wrong, and it was also against the self-interest of Germans, leading as it did to Germany in ruins and millions of Germans dead. These are distinct arguments.
I agree that the arguments are/can be distinct, but you didn't present them that way. Regardless of whether we disagree on that, I get your point. I don't see anywhere that you could have defined the second argument outside of the other three bullet points I noted, so the discussion remains the same.
It isn't specifically the invasion of Gaza, it's specifically the current within the ideological structure of Zionism which essentially casts Israel and the Zionist project as infinitely good, and the Palestinians as infinitely and eternally evil. Part of this is the flat denial that Zionism is a colonizing project, something its early leaders (including Israel's founding fathers) were quite open and clear about. Revisionist Zionism, the main right-wing current within Zionism for most of its history, basically says: the Palestinians will never give up the fight because we are taking their own country away from them, and so Israel will need to rely on superior military strength. But the crucial second half was that eventually the Palestinians would realize the impossibility of removing or destroying Israel, at which point Israel would come to an agreement with them that would guarantee Palestinian security and civil and political rights. That second half has been jettisoned competely, with most Israelis no longer feeling bound to accept the physical existence of their enemies. In such an ideological environment the guardrails fall away and large-scale atrocities become inevitable.
All of this makes sense, I can also see how it ties into being ultimately against the self-interest of Israel (although I would like to hear you explain that in more detail)... but why does this mean that the US should side with the Palestinians against Israel? and how does it relate to the three US self-interest bullet points you raised earlier (1. ME destabilization 2. 9/11 3. Iran)?
 
Last edited:
was commenting on the propensity for hating "us" r.e. religious conservatives. Not that we (in any Western country) don't have them homegrown as well!
It's scale. Most polling on Palestinian support for religious law is bleak. Usually over 50%. There is no equivalent level of support in Israel nor the West.
And yet you speak to Hamas' actions on exactly the same topic? Why?
Because I am aware Hamas were the first hostage takers, as anyone with a passing familiarity is. To comment on Israel's approach to hostage retrieval is more complicated, involving evaluation of multiple state institutions: Intel, military, political.
Which is a predictable outcome of Israel's actions. It's true that nothing happens in a vacuum, but if your response to tens of thousands dead is to suggest that it's "standard human operating procedure", I'm not sure our morals are compatible in the slightest unfortunately
I'm sure you're aware that the events of October 7 were going to lead to invasion of Gaza. Hamas entered Israeli territory to do violence in the most unambiguous way, and in counter, Israeli entered Gaza with the stated goal of removing Hamas' ability to do violence. That's been the standard reply for time immemorial.

The cycle of violence will continue, too, I think we are both aware.
No. Why is that relevant?
The original question was: should the US abandon Israel?

What states in the ME share our laws, values and systems of government, and which do not, is of most relevance.
Which comes chronologically after years of planning that Israel somehow completely missed, after a notably brutal year or two for Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank generally (prior to October 7th), etc, et al. Your comment here reads as an attempt at a justification - why?
Because it's worth it to point out the difference in intent. Show me an instance in which IDF soldiers go into Gaza with the stated intent to kill men women and children. Not enemy fighters - just as many Palestinians as possible, until forced to stop.
And surely, shouldn't our expectations for the "only democracy in the Middle East" be higher than they are for Hamas?
No. Our expectations should be equivalent.
 
I hope Civ 7 has insurgents that we can finance and spur to attack rival Civs, kinda like Iran and Hamas.
 
Because I am aware Hamas were the first hostage takers, as anyone with a passing familiarity is.
So you believe that on October 7th, there were no Palestinians in any Israeli jail, and that Israel did not and does not have a habit of discriminating against Israel-Arabs, nevermind Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza?
I'm sure you're aware that the events of October 7 were going to lead to invasion of Gaza.
I was sure they'd lead to a response. That doesn't guarantee any specific response, nor an invasion (which Israel were cautioned against, until they did it, etc, et al).
Hamas entered Israeli territory to do violence in the most unambiguous way, and in counter, Israeli entered Gaza with the stated goal of removing Hamas' ability to do violence. That's been the standard reply for time immemorial.
This, again, reads like a justification based on the idea that this only started on October 7th, 2023, and that nothing happened before this date. You mention the cycle of violence, but you seem to consider action B wholly justified because of action A. Why?
What states in the ME share our laws, values and systems of government, and which do not, is of most relevance.
Not really. Western countries make nice with all sorts of regressive regimes, for example Saudi Arabia, when it suits them politically. Shared values is of pretty little relevance as it turns out.
Because it's worth it to point out the difference in intent. Show me an instance in which IDF soldiers go into Gaza with the stated intent to kill men women and children. Not enemy fighters - just as many Palestinians as possible, until forced to stop.
I'd argue settler-inflicted violence is more prolific, but considering that settlers are frequently protected by the IDF as they carry out raids (particularly in the West Bank), there are plenty of instances you could look for yourself. Many have been linked in this and previous threads.

This is why making a value judgement r.e. "intent" is difficult when you only have a passing familiarity.
No. Our expectations should be equivalent.
Why? Labels have meanings. If our expectations are equivalent, that means the standing of both parties are likewise. If we give one a bad label, and another a good label, it's because we expect them to act in accordance with these labels. Would you trust a liar? It seems somewhat contradictory, no?
 
So the "performative unmasking" (in your words, my actual words that mean something pretty different were "the performance unmasked") can't actually be disingenuous or "masturbatory" by definition. Someone can hide behind curtains, but that doesn't make the act of drawing back the curtains false. Does it?
Trying to distill my thoughts/position on this particular issue, for the sake of clarity...

I asked three questions, one of which was "Why should the US punish/abandon Israel to help Gaza?", to which the response was essentially "because its the right thing to do". That makes sense, but then the obviously corollary question is "why is the US obligated to 'do the right thing'"? The obvious response to that being, "because that is what the US professes to do". I agree with that.

So then, I point out, what I think is also obvious, which is that the US is misleading, to the extent that the US proclaims to be motivated by a desire/goal/policy of "doing the right thing". Your response, seemed to be, that you agree, you know that, but you want to confront and expose the US on that anyway, to call the US out for the performative propaganda, lies, etc. I see value in that, but now that's done. So OK, we've exposed the lies... "pulled back the curtain" as you described it. The "doing the right thing" motivation to help Gaza has been exposed as a sham and a farce. So that's the end, we're all in agreement... unless...we can define some other reason the US should help Gaza, besides "doing the right thing" which we all knew was BS, and which we've exposed exhaustively, as a farce. Otherwise, we are just speedrunning Super Mario Bros over and over to expose the warp-zone hack again and again. We already exposed it. Does that makes sense?

Why should the US help Gaza*?
Because its the right thing to do.
Yeah, but the US doesn't really care about doing the right thing, you know that.
I do know that... but I want to expose the US for it.
OK so you exposed them, so now do we agree that there's no reason for the US to help Gaza?

*"help Gaza" being shorthand for "sanction/punish/abandon Israel to help Gaza"
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom