Israel-Gaza : The bitter harvest of hate

[Father Heathen]

Nonetheless, it worked.
And it was a reasonably foreseeable result.
Israel could not expect defeating Hamas by
nuking Gaza. What parts would it hit with
how many weapons?
The more it hit, the civilians would die. This
would cause the creation of more violent
resistance to Israel. And possibly by other
countries who'd want to retaliate, &
justifiably end Israel as a country.

It appears that you're arguing that the
efficacy & ethics of using nukes are
identical in all scenarios. That would
be wrong.

That, and Israel would be irradiated by its own bomb.

 

[flowerpower]

In debates I've seen about this pretty obnoxious and silly little conflict (that the international media and politicians always decide to pretend is the most important conflict in human history), there is often a tit for tat, back and forth worthless argument about which side is dehumanizing who.

I intend to flip the above described discussion and ask the question: why is either side regarding themselves as more important or superior to the other and why is the tendency of the media and politicians to make this conflict out to be so important when global acts of terrorism and war happen every day all over the world?

I guess that's two questions -

(1) Are Jews or Palestinians superior or more important people than the rest of humanity? Why or why not?

(2) Why is the Israel-Palestinian conflict made out to be so important to at least the entire western world when it isn't that important at all?

(maybe I should make a separate thread about this)

 

[Revoltingest]

In debates I've seen about this pretty obnoxious and silly little conflict (that the international media and politicians always decide to pretend is the most important conflict in human history), there is often a tit for tat, back and forth worthless argument about which side is dehumanizing who.

I intend to flip the above described discussion and ask the question: why is either side regarding themselves as more important or superior to the other and why is the tendency of the media and politicians to make this conflict out to be so important when global acts of terrorism and war happen every day all over the world?

I guess that's two questions -

(1) Are Jews or Palestinians superior or more important people than the rest of humanity? Why or why not?

(2) Why is the Israel-Palestinian conflict made out to be so important to at least the entire western world when it isn't that important at all?

(maybe I should make a separate thread about this)

The driving factor behind this conflict dominating
discussion (IMO) is that USA, the most powerful
country on Earth, is largely responsible for it.
Israel gets massive money, military, & political
support to brutalize & kill Palestinians wholesale
in a religious war against an oppressed minority,
ie, Christians & Jews vs Muslims.
Other conflicts suck hind teat.

 

[Lyndon]

actually the christians in israel are palestinian, in west bank and gaza

 

[flowerpower]

actually the christians in israel are palestinian, in west bank and gaza

Lol.

My first reaction or impulse to this post was to huff and shout "oh who cares???!!!!"

But then I thought better of it.

This is more me laughing at myself than anything else.

I annoy myself by how apathetic I am to this conflict when everyone around me seems obsessed with it.

I can't tell whether it makes me feel better or worse than everyone else.

 

[Estro Felino]

I figure if you went against them, they would simply eliminate you. Like the Nazi’s, fear of your life is a powerful force. Why else would you let Hamas set up a rocket launching site next to your home?

Just like Italian partisans went against Nazis during WW2...and risked their own life.
It's just that they did want WW2 to end, that's why they helped the Allies.
I am sorry, but I hardly believe Gaza civilians are victims of Hamas.

 

[Estro Felino]

I don't believe it was.

Thank you for your honesty.

 

[Estro Felino]

People aren't all that rational though. Developed countries have low birth rates, whereas hell holes tend to have high birth rates.

Hardly. Considering many people in Europe don't make them because they can't afford them.

 

[Koldo]

Hardly. Considering many people in Europe don't make them because they can't afford them.

When they are acting rationally.

 

[Koldo]

Nonetheless, it worked.
And it was a reasonably foreseeable result.
Israel could not expect defeating Hamas by
nuking Gaza. What parts would it hit with
how many weapons?

The entirety of Gaza, with however many nukes are necessary to either kill every single person in Gaza or force them to leave. Since Hamas is a political group in charge of a territory, if you nuke the whole territory and leave no one alive in there, you effectively defeat it. Turning a ruler into a small terrorist group is a victory.

The more it hit, the civilians would die. This
would cause the creation of more violent
resistance to Israel. And possibly by other
countries who'd want to retaliate, &
justifiably end Israel as a country.

Thus why I am saying that retaliation is the driving force behind Israel not doing it.

It appears that you're arguing that the
efficacy & ethics of using nukes are
identical in all scenarios. That would
be wrong.

I am not saying it is the same in all scenarios. I am saying the ethics are the same in this scenario.

Is it alright to kill civilians, if they are collateral damage, to end a war? If it is, and if Israel isn't even going nuclear, how can we condemn it?

 

[Revoltingest]

The entirety of Gaza, with however many nukes are necessary to either kill every single person in Gaza or force them to leave. Since Hamas is a political group in charge of a territory, if you nuke the whole territory and leave no one alive in there, you effectively defeat it. Turning a ruler into a small terrorist group is a victory.

Thus why I am saying that retaliation is the driving force behind Israel not doing it.

I see 2 motives for Israel's actions....
1) Vengeance against Hamas.
2) Eliminating Palestinians so Jewish settlers can move in.

I am not saying it is the same in all scenarios. I am saying the ethics are the same in this scenario.

The ethics superficially appear the same only if one
ignores ethics, motives, strategy, & probability of success.

Is it alright to kill civilians, if they are collateral damage, to end a war? If it is, and if Israel isn't even going nuclear, how can we condemn it?

It's a balance of military interests, saving lives of
one's own side, saving lives on the other side,
long term effects, etc.
Nuking Japan arguably saved lives by ending the
war. Note also that conventional bombing to induce
firestorms was deadlier, but couldn't end the war.
The nuclear show of force did so because it inspired
futility of continuing.

 

[Kenny]

This. The average Palestinian would be probably afraid to speak out in opposition to Hamas.

That is what I said

Refusing to differentiate them and treating them like they're all part some sort of hive-mind is absurd.

I think you read into what wasn’t there

 

[Kenny]

Just like Italian partisans went against Nazis during WW2...and risked their own life.
It's just that they did want WW2 to end, that's why they helped the Allies.
I am sorry, but I hardly believe Gaza civilians are victims of Hamas.

The fact that billions of dollars, supplies et al that were meant to help the Gazans were siphoned off for an underground city with weapons makes every Palestinians held in poverty a victim

 

[Estro Felino]

The fact that billions of dollars, supplies et al that were meant to help the Gazans were siphoned off for an underground city with weapons makes every Palestinians held in poverty a victim

Who built this underground city?
Not certainly ten or twenty people.
It takes thousands of masons.

 

[Kenny]

Who built this underground city?
Not certainly ten or twenty people.
It takes thousands of masons.

EXACTLY! - and the Palestinians suffered because of it.

 

[Estro Felino]

EXACTLY! - and the Palestinians suffered because of it.

Gazans became Gazans in 2005.
What have they been doing, specifically, to work for a brighter future for their own children, to favor good relations with Israel and other countries?
For 17 years?

 

[Koldo]

I see 2 motives for Israel's actions....
1) Vengeance against Hamas.

Two words: Pearl Harbor.

2) Eliminating Palestinians so Jewish settlers can move in.

While convenient if it happened, it is important to note that Israel used to have settlements in Gaza. Israel's unilateral decision to dismantle them means they were not really all that important. Keeping Gaza under control was and is the top priority.

The ethics superficially appear the same only if one
ignores ethics, motives, strategy, & probability of success.

The main motive is to win the war, in both cases. The strategy is to bomb certain locations, at the cost of civilian lives, to weaken the enemy forces, in both cases. The probability of success is high, in both cases.

It's a balance of military interests, saving lives of
one's own side, saving lives on the other side,
long term effects, etc.
Nuking Japan arguably saved lives by ending the
war. Note also that conventional bombing to induce
firestorms was deadlier, but couldn't end the war.
The nuclear show of force did so because it inspired
futility of continuing.

Nuking Japan saved american lives, but it is hard to argue that it saved more japanese civilian lives than the alternatives.

 

[Koldo]

Gazans became Gazans in 2005.
What have they been doing, specifically, to work for a brighter future for their own children, to favor good relations with Israel and other countries?
For 17 years?

Good relations with a country that keeps control over your country?

 

[Estro Felino]

Good relations with a country that keeps control over your country?

But it's Israel that gave Gaza to Gazans.

 

[Koldo]

But it's Israel that gave Gaza to Gazans.

What do you mean by this?