[RD] War in Gaza: News Thread

[Gorbles]

It is the best option. 40 years of armed struggle hasn't moved the needle. Sorry, but the majority myself included, do actually believe in a right of a people to defend itself from wanton violence when coupled with promises of complete destruction. This shows no sign of meaningfully changing.

You have a lot of folks quoting you, but did you see my last question?

Why is it that only Israel benefits from some kind of right? Why do Palestinians not? Israel have made it very clear that senior officials want Gaza gone (at the very least).

 

[Voidwalkin]

No you don't, you don't believe the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from the theft of their country. None of the people saying this believe that Palestine has the right to exist or defend itself.

...dude. You'll flail about for 30 more years with this horsehocky. Forgive me for being emphatic.

The Palestinians have no economic nor military power. Without moral authority, they cannot rally sufficient support to be effective. It's perfectly clear; and the way you build moral authority is not by shooting up a bunch of kids at a music festival. That builds precisely the opposite, it builds contempt. Such instances are guaranteed in any kind of armed struggle: particularly when you're constrained to the use of irregulars. Irregulars nearly always commit such atrocities. And what's more? Practically, they have no ability to create a more disciplined force, presuming they'd even be so inclined. There are more than enough signs that their virulent antisemitism will lead them to commit atrocity.

It is perfectly valid to defend oneself thru right action and nonviolence; it can be said that the famed icons of nonviolent resistance did exactly that.

In Hamas' armed struggle, they have failed to defend the people and property of Gaza. The armed struggle is perhaps the least effective method of any kind of resistance.

Why is it that only Israel benefits from some kind of right? Why do Palestinians not? Israel have made it very clear that senior officials want Gaza gone (at the very least).

I think I probably answered this above; it doesn't. The issue is Palestine cannot defend itself through military means, while Israel can. If Hamas is committed to atrocity, Israel can, will and should defend itself.

Palestine cannot defend itself through atrocity, or violence. It makes itself helpless through such.

 

[Senethro]

...dude. You'll flail about for 30 more years with this horsehocky. Forgive me for being emphatic.

The Palestinians have no economic nor military power. Without moral authority, they cannot rally sufficient support to be effective. It's perfectly clear; and the way you build moral authority is not by shooting up a bunch of kids at a music festival. That builds precisely the opposite, it builds contempt. Such instances are guaranteed in any kind of armed struggle: particularly when you're constrained to the use of irregulars. Irregulars nearly always commit such atrocities. And what's more? Practically, they have no ability to create a more disciplined force, presuming they'd even be so inclined. There are more than enough signs that their virulent antisemitism will lead them to commit atrocity.

It is perfectly valid to defend oneself thru right action and nonviolence; it can be said that the famed icons of nonviolent resistance did exactly that.

In Hamas' armed struggle, they have failed to defend the people and property of Gaza. The armed struggle is perhaps the least effective method of any kind of resistance.

I think I probably answered this above; it doesn't. The issue is Palestine cannot defend itself through military means, while Israel can. If Hamas is committed to atrocity, Israel can, will and should defend itself.

Palestine cannot defend itself through atrocity, or violence. It makes itself helpless through such.

No, you haven't. You're saying self defense is only for one side, and non violence for the other.

I don't think you even can say why.

 

[Crezth]

I think Biden should be given a Nobel peace prize for preventing the genocide in Gaza.

 

[Crezth]

No, you haven't. You're saying self defense is only for one side, and non violence for the other.

I don't think you even can say why.

He’s just saying might makes right. As if “moral authority” has anything to do with actual morality and isn’t just a foregone conclusion that people accept because you’ve got your bayonet to their throat. All this meaningless orthodox drivel about moral authority is meant to elide the discussion of mechanisms and systems he has no concept of. As if evil people and evil governments aren’t the rule rather than the exception up and down the course of history! Kids shot at a music festival! Who cares? People get shot every day.

 

[Gorbles]

I think I probably answered this above; it doesn't. The issue is Palestine cannot defend itself through military means, while Israel can. If Hamas is committed to atrocity, Israel can, will and should defend itself.

Palestine cannot defend itself through atrocity, or violence. It makes itself helpless through such.

But Israel are also committing atrocity. Atrocities, plural. Can you explain how this explanation cannot be used against Israel, and only against Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere?

This is something you've failed to explain throughout our back-and-forth. I understand why you think Israel has this "right to defend". I don't understand how this also doesn't apply to any other political or military organisation. Is your defining line that Hamas are considered terrorists and the IDF legally aren't? Is that all it comes down to, for you? Do the actions carried out have no weight? Do the lies about "safe" evacuation areas not matter? The ambulances bombed? The forensic report concluding a child was very likely if not conclusively shot repeatedly with a tank (I linked the piece myself, not too long ago) - does that not matter?

Your argument seems to go in circles. Hamas are in the wrong because their actions are bad, but Israel's actions are not because . . . Hamas' actions are bad? You're not applying the standard consistently. You're giving Israel some kind of leeway that you're not giving Hamas. What is that, and why are you?

 

[Voidwalkin]

No, you haven't. You're saying self defense is only for one side, and non violence for the other.

I don't think you even can say why.

You're giving Israel some kind of leeway that you're not giving Hamas. What is that, and why are you?

Jesus Christ. This becomes tiresome. The board is not evenly set; if you've not noticed. If you have half the chess pieces, the wrong approach will lead to a poor outcome.

The original point is it is poor strategy to engage in violent struggle if you lack the ability to defend yourself. Gaza lies in ruin as testament to this. How does a 100lb, malnourished fighter defend against the ability of a trained middleweight? That is the practical reality of this.

Perhaps the only thing the two of you are correct in is that we're going in circles.

If you cannot effectively defend yourself through military action...
If military action has not gathered support around you...
If it has prohibited other approaches...
You persist?

Quite obviously they can, because they have.

Why wouldn't I say it's stupid? Gentleman, where are the results? The proof is on the ground, in Gaza. There you can find the results of armed struggle. Ruin, for no real gain.

All this meaningless orthodox drivel about moral authority is meant to elide the discussion of mechanisms and systems he has no concept of. As if evil people and evil governments aren’t the rule rather than the exception up and down the course of history! Kids shot at a music festival! Who cares? People get shot every day.

A person claiming I have no conception proceeds to claim that no one cares about the kids shot at the festival. Welp!

 

[Sommerswerd]

Not really, though this idea has been widely promoted as part of the Lost Cause myth. The Union was pretty brutal in Missouri (some scorched earth & crimes against civilians to deal with confederate raiders and guerrillas) but not really much elsewhere (lots of destruction of property but few incidents of murder or torture of civilians).

Meanwhile the Confederates were kidnapping people to be enslaved on almost every raid, and also the Confederates did war crimes like the Fort Pillow massacre (black troops in the garrison trying to surrender were put to the sword) or the Lawrence massacre.

Anyway, the occupied Confederates did engage in a massive terrorist campaign and actually won when the Federal army was withdrawn in 1874.

Well of course Sherman's March for example isn't easily disregarded, but the "Lost Cause" myth is certainly a noteworthy phenomenon and a fair point to raise in the context of Civil War romanticism and revisionism.

Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing that the Civil War presents a rare example of a US war where some relevant similarities (in terms of the dynamic and brutality) can be identified in comparison to the Gaza invasion? That was my real point in bringing it up.

 

[Crezth]

A person claiming I have no conception proceeds to claim that no one cares about the kids shot at the festival. Welp!

In reality? No one does. Come on, are you going to pick up a rifle and avenge them? The answer is “of course not,” because fighting in a war is stupid. And even if you did, no one would care. Enjoy eating baked beans and saltine crackers at the VFW for the rest of your life!

Even the Israelis don’t care about the kids. Google “treatment of rescued hostages in Israel” to know more. Even the Israelis don’t care about those kids and even less their government. A bunch of those kids could have been rescued! Instead of 700 dead they could have had 1000 by doing nothing! Well, they picked do nothing. Too bad, so sad… so when do I get my check? You know, for the bombs and people-bulldozers I’m selling. You could say I’m making a “killing!” Hahaha!

No, indeed, the dead and the numbers of dead don’t matter. The only thing that matters is who is shooting at you right now, and where can you hide?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: Let's not get personal folks.

 

[Lexicus]

Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing that the Civil War presents a rare example of a US war where some relevant similarities (in terms of the dynamic and brutality) can be identified in comparison to the Gaza invasion? That was my real point in bringing it up.

Of course, I agree.

 

[Lexicus]

The Palestinians have no economic nor military power. Without moral authority, they cannot rally sufficient support to be effective.

So your moral rule is vae victis?

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Sorry, but the majority myself included, do actually believe in a right of a people to defend itself from wanton violence when coupled with promises of complete destruction

So you agree that the Palestinians have the right to violent resistance?

 

[Voidwalkin]

So your moral rule is vae victis?

If your people are near certain to be vanquished in the contest, and suffer woe in consequence, it follows that without meaningful gain, you're a blundering wreck ruining all you touch.

4 decades, still no clear gain. I sincerely doubt it would've been politically feasible for Israel to have maintained its policies without Hamas. The danger they credibly threaten is why there has not been, and will not be, a formation of any consensus.

What's more? They're total loons. Schlaufuchs, in an earlier post, mentioned that the American labor movement implied use of violence. That's true. There's an example from my hometown - 7 striking steel workers blockading a bridge were gunned down by Pinkertons. They armed, to defend against further attacks, and the mere implication made ownership cave.

In contrast, none of Hamas' stated goals or actions suggests they can be expected to act rationally. The American labor movement at no point gunned down doped up teenagers at a music festival, because this is entirely counterproductive and irrational, but they did. They will continue to blunder away any support with wanton acts of despicable violence: mark it down. They're crazy.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Israeli strike kills Gaza workers trying to restore drinking water

Employees killed as they were preparing to work on wells that provide water to the city, says municipality spokesman​

Live updates: Follow the latest news on Israel-Gaza
An Israeli airstrike on a municipal building in Gaza city on Friday killed at least five people, including four workers, and caused significant destruction, a municipality spokesman told The National.
Civil defence teams are searching for bodies in the rubble after the Gaza Municipality garage was destroyed in a strike as employees were preparing to begin work on wells to supply water to locals, according to spokesman Hosni Mhanna.
The strike on the building on Al Wahda street, in the centre of the city, was not the first time the municipality had been targeted by Israeli bombardment, said Mr Mhanna.


The municipality is responsible for services such as rubbish removal, supplying clean water and repairing sewers, Mr Mhanna said, stressing the importance of this work at a time of deteriorating living conditions and the collapse of basic services in the war-ravaged enclave.
The continued attack on personnel and facilities “threatens a major catastrophe and jeopardises the municipality's ability to continue its minimal operations to meet the people's needs”, he warned.
READ MORE
At least 18 killed in latest Israeli air strikes across Gaza
“The municipality has lost more than 60 employees during the war, most of whom were killed in Israeli attacks while on duty,” Mr Mhanna said.
Since October 7, Israel has also destroyed 125 municipality vehicles, he said, but “the most significant losses have been human lives”.

Gaza was already struggling to dispose of about 2,000 tonnes of waste generated each day before the war. Now a lack of rubbish collection vehicles and the fuel to operate them has made the problem worse, according to humanitarian agencies.
In addition to displacement, destruction of medical facilities and scarcity of food, Gazans are now having to deal with the stench from rotting rubbish, which has become a breeding ground for disease-spreading pests.
Attacks on municipality workers and facilities make it even more difficult to address the issue.
“The municipality demands an immediate investigation into this crime committed against relief workers who are protected under international law,” Mr Mhanna said.
He also called “for international intervention to protect the teams and their life-saving work”.
Israeli strikes targeted multiple areas of Gaza on Friday, with heavy fighting reported in Rafah.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

4 decades, still no clear gain. I sincerely doubt it would've been politically feasible for Israel to have maintained its policies without Hamas.

You do know Israel's policies have been maintained for more than 4 decades, before Hamas came to power?

Why is the moral impetus to behave better on the people facing atrocities than the one perpetrating it?

 

[Gorbles]

The original point is it is poor strategy to engage in violent struggle if you lack the ability to defend yourself.

But that has nothing to do with the right to defend oneself.

If you can't separate claims of rights from your own personal opinion r.e. the efficacy of the sides involved, then maybe you need to think about your arguments a bit more?

Why wouldn't I say it's stupid? Gentleman, where are the results? The proof is on the ground, in Gaza. There you can find the results of armed struggle. Ruin, for no real gain.

You can say whatever you like is stupid, in your opinion. But again this has nothing to do with the right to respond.

This is a simple yes-or-no question. Given Israel's atrocities and stated goals for the region, does Gaza have a right to respond?

 

[Voidwalkin]

So you agree that the Palestinians have the right to violent resistance?

Provided they have a clear military objective against a valid military target its within established norms, yeah. Against civilian targrtd no. There wasn't a claim otherwise. There was a claim that stepping outside these norms to do wanton violence gave Israel its case to invade Gaza, and worthy of note as well was that such an invasion was a nonstarter before their major breach of norms necessitated intervention

on the people facing atrocities than the one perpetrating it?

I suppose I believe leadership inherently contains an obligation to serve the best interests of those it represents; if your approach has brought woe to your people without gain, as I said, your leadership is a blundering wreck.

Without saying something roughly equivalent to "but Israel", can any of you plainly answer where Hamas' strategy has produced a noteworthy positive shift?

There have been endless attempts to shift the matter from strategy to morality; and I begin to suspect it's simply because no noteworthy positive change can be identified

 

[Gorbles]

Provided they have a clear military objective against a valid military target its within established norms, yeah. Against civilian targrtd no.

So why do you insist that Israel has a right to defend? It keeps hitting civilian targets, frequently in defiance of international and humanitarian law.

There have been endless attempts to shift the matter from strategy to morality; and I begin to suspect it's simply because no noteworthy positive change can be identified

This started at your claim of "right to defend". This isn't a strategic claim, it's a moral one. Or a legal one, I'm not sure how strongly you're codifying it.

 

[Voidwalkin]

First, I'd like to note that my simple question has not been answered. In 4 pages, only one post has clearly claimed positive effects.

So why do you insist that Israel has a right to defend? It keeps hitting civilian targets, frequently in defiance of international and humanitarian law.

I briefly discussed this with Lexicus; I'm not handwaving away claims there were military targets at these locations as IDF propaganda. I do not trust Hamas, an organization with a stated belief a civilian bodycount is to their strategic political advantage, to provide honest accounting of whether their leaders/fighters were or were not present.

Where unambiguous cases are found, I offer condemnation, while noting that this chain of events, indeed the whole invasion, was politically impossible before the Hamas mass breach.

This started at your claim of "right to defend". This isn't a strategic claim, it's a moral one. Or a legal one, I'm not sure how strongly you're codifying it.

It started with a claim there is little to like about Hamas, more accurately. You're busy hunting for double standards; yet I note you previously claimed this

And surely, shouldn't our expectations for the "only democracy in the Middle East" be higher than they are for Hamas?

Perhaps some inward searching is indeed necessary here; can you realistically evaluate Hamas' goals, means and methods without bias if they're held to a lower standard?

I suspect sympathies are compromising judgement.

This is something of a pattern, here, which isn't specific to you(writing to 5 or so in effect) The morality of Israel is endlessly evaluated, here, while an evaluation of Hamas' strategic and moral shortcomings are glossed over. The default to truth towards their claims of Israeli immorality, lack of analysis of the cost/benefits of their strategy, lack of incorporating their hardcore antisemitism and their stated goals into evaluation of their effect on the peace process or recognition of its contribution to the wider, chilling political effects of these stances.

Simply look at how quickly it was incorrectly presumed that my claim Palestine cannot defend itself was an assertion they had no right to; when in fact, it was a reference to the fact they have no real ability to. The situation on the ground doesn't suggest I'm wrong. Gaza does lie in ruins. Gains are minimal. If Hamas' philosophy cannot be acknowledged as bearing culpability in precipitating that course of events, well, gee golly.

Yet, the gun was jumped, as it has been consistently, on so many issues related to this matter.