Israel-Gaza : The bitter harvest of hate

[Revoltingest]

...what? You clearly didn't understand my point.

I wonder if you understood mine?
There's a common double standard to sympathize
with Jewish bigotry, & explain it away. But the same
isn't extended to other groups, eg, Palestinians, who
are painted as vile anti-semites & animals because
they "hate Jews".
Israel is exterminating Palestinians & "volunteering"
them to emigrate far away by threat of death, & by
de-housing them. Yet the popular sympathy on both
the left & right is for a couple hundred Israeli hostages.
Not the tens of thousands of Palestinians killed, the many
more maimed, & the millions suffering diaspora.

 

[Koldo]

The fact that there were so many children shows that they were fine.
I mean...the narrative that Gazans were in a prison was false. If you are in a prison, you don't make children that will have to undergo captivity.
I believe the opposite. They were fine, thanks to the aid from the West and Qatar.
That's why they made so many children. No EU country has their birth rates.

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

 

[libre]

Your country needlessly killed the children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Was your country right then? If it was, so is Israel now.

Bizarre self own.

 

[Revoltingest]

Your country needlessly killed the children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Was your country right then? If it was, so is Israel now.

Without answering my question, it strongly
appears that you approve of Israel's killing
so many civilians & children, & dislodging
the population from Gaza.
Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombings had the
military goal of ending the war. It worked.
Rapidly.
Israel's bombings have the stated goal of
exterminating Hamas, but Israel has been
failing miserably for many decades with this
policy of oppression, death, & destruction.
Their real main goal appears to be mayhem.

 

[Father Heathen]

I wonder if you understood mine?
There's a common double standard to sympathize
with Jewish bigotry, & explain it away. But the same
isn't extended to other groups, eg, Palestinians, who
are painted as vile anti-semites & animals because
they "hate Jews".
Israel is exterminating Palestinians & "volunteering"
them to emigrate far away by threat of death, & bey
de-housing them. Yet the popular sympathy on both
the left & right is for a couple hundred Israeli hostages.
Not the tens of thousands of Palestinians killed, the many
more maimed, & the millions suffering diaspora.

What does that have to do with me?

 

[Revoltingest]

What does that have to do with me?

Not too much.
But you & I are discussing this in
an environment wherein your post
meshed with posters with less
humanity.

 

[Koldo]

Without answering my question, it strongly
appears that you approve of Israel's killing
so many civilians & children, & dislodging
the population from Gaza.
Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombings had the
military goal of ending the war. It worked.
Rapidly.
Israel's bombings have the stated goal of
exterminating Hamas, but Israel has been
failing miserably for many decades with this
policy of oppression, death, & destruction.
Their real main goal appears to be mayhem.

If Israel could use the nuclear option without the fear of retribution, just like US did, I doubt it wouldn't have taken this route by now.
And if it is acceptable to nuke highly populated areas just to finish a war, like the US chose to do, then it would be perfectly fine for Israel to go nuclear too. Thus why it is important to criticize what the US did back then, to avoid double standards.

 

[Koldo]

Your country needlessly killed the children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Was your country right then? If it was, so is Israel now.

Thus why it is important to say it was wrong back then, just like it is wrong now.

 

[Father Heathen]

Your country needlessly killed the children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Was your country right then? If it was, so is Israel now.

I don't believe it was.

 

[Revoltingest]

If Israel could use the nuclear option without the fear of retribution...

No.
1) Tolerance for nuking a city has lessened since WW2.
That would only increase Israel's pariah status.
Even US politicians might find fault with Israel's nuking
a civilian population for no military reason.
2) Even Israel must be able to realize that such a
massive & ineffective increase in the death toll would
inspire more violent resistance....what they call "terrorism".

And if it is acceptable to nuke highly populated areas just to finish a war, like the US chose to do, then it would be perfectly fine for Israel to go nuclear too.

Acceptability has changed since the very 1st usage.
What would Israel nuke that would achieve a
military objective?

Thus why it is important to criticize what the US did back then, to avoid double standards.

If the standard is military efficacy, then it's not double.
The WW2 nukes achieved the stated military objective,
ie, they ended the war. Nuking Gaza, Lebanon, or Iran
would have the opposite effect.

 

[Koldo]

No.
1) Tolerance for nuking a city has lessened since WW2.
That would only increase Israel's pariah status.
Even US politicians might find fault with Israel's nuking
a civilian population for no military reason.
2) Even Israel must be able to realize that such a
massive & ineffective increase in the death toll would
inspire more violent resistance....what they call "terrorism".


Acceptability has changed since the very 1st usage.
What would Israel nuke that would achieve a
military objective?

If the standard is military efficacy, then it's not double.
The WW2 nukes achieved the stated military objective,
ie, they ended the war. Nuking Gaza, Lebanon, or Iran
would have the opposite effect.

Nuking Gaza to the point living there would be unsustainable would definitely achieve Israel's main objective: Hama's defeat and the end of the war through Israel's victory. It is same rationale behind the dropping of the atomic bombs in Japan.

 

[libre]

Nuking Gaza to the point living there would be unsustainable would definitely achieve Israel's main objective: Hama's defeat and the end of the war through Israel's victory. It is same rationale behind the dropping of the atomic bombs in Japan.

Making Gaza completely inhospitable permanently is not aligned with Israeli strategic interests, even if it were in some universe not something that would escalate the conflict and completely decimate their public support.

No statesman in the world would want to risk nuking a stateless territory on their border even if it had popular support.

 

[Koldo]

Making Gaza completely inhospitable permanently is not aligned with Israeli strategic interests, even if it were in some universe not something that would escalate the conflict and completely decimate their public support.

How did you reach this conclusion?
I didn't use the word 'permanently' though.

No statesman in the world would want to risk nuking a stateless territory on their border even if it had popular support.

What risk are you talking about? Retribution?

 

[Kenny]

One question: if the Gazans are all victims of Hamas, why don't they seek an alliance with Israel?
It doesn't add up.
Your narrative doesn't add up.
It's illogical, with all due respect.

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?

 

[Revoltingest]

Nuking Gaza to the point living there would be unsustainable would definitely achieve Israel's main objective: Hama's defeat and the end of the war through Israel's victory.

Hamas exists in other countries.
It wouldn't be defeated.
And Israel is already destroying Gaza
such that Palestinians must leave.
And now Israel is openly talking about
moving in. Nuked land wouldn't suit
Jewish colonization.

It is same rationale behind the dropping of the atomic bombs in Japan.

You miss the point that nuking Japan wasn't
mere "rationalization". It achieved the intended
objective of ending the war.
But Israel wouldn't be able to claim that nuking
Gaza would end Hamas.

 

[libre]

How did you reach this conclusion?
I didn't use the word 'permanently' though.

Fair enough. My bad for assuming.

America got off lightly PR-wise for using the atomic bombs, and even then it's still one of the most controversial decisions in the history of the American military, domestically and internationally.

Deployment of any nuclear weapons threatens the normalization of their use in an era where non-proliferation is being normalized.
Further, the blast in Hiroshima was wider than Gaza is. While Israel would not get hit by the advent of the explosion, it would most definitely break glass in Israel and/or Egypt at the very least.

Israelis and Palestinians alike would have a first hand experience viewing the divine horror of the atom bomb in person, and would learn about through a terrorizing experience, rather than a well-oiled propaganda machine like the American civilians largely did.

Further, it would be completely undeniable that Israel was targeting civilians, which is the main charge that Israel has and will consistently deny.

I don't think it's even remotely in the interests of even the most despotic militarists to do this.

 

[Koldo]

Fair enough. My bad for assuming.

America got off lightly PR-wise for using the atomic bombs, and even then it's still one of the most controversial decisions in the history of the American military, domestically and internationally.

Deployment of any nuclear weapons threatens the normalization of their use in an era where non-proliferation is being normalized.

The concern here is retaliation.

Further, the blast in Hiroshima was wider than Gaza is. While Israel would not get hit by the advent of the explosion, it would most definitely break glass in Israel and/or Egypt at the very least.

Israelis and Palestinians alike would have a first hand experience viewing the divine horror of the atom bomb in person, and would learn about through a terrorizing experience, rather than a well-oiled propaganda machine like the American civilians largely did.

Further, it would be completely undeniable that Israel was targeting civilians, which is the main charge that Israel has and will consistently deny.

I don't think it's even remotely in the interests of even the most despotic militarists to do this.

The problem is that what you are saying is that it is not convenient for Israel to use atomic bombs on Gaza. But none of this rationale would allow one to condemn Israel for dropping the atomic bombs whilst supporting the USA's decision to drop the bombs on Japan in the past.

 

[Koldo]

Hamas exists in other countries.
It wouldn't be defeated.
And Israel is already destroying Gaza
such that Palestinians must leave.
And now Israel is openly talking about
moving in. Nuked land wouldn't suit
Jewish colonization.

Hamas would be defeated. Just not annihilated.
Jewish colonization of Gaza hasn't been Israel's goal for quite a while (unlike West Bank's).

You miss the point that nuking Japan wasn't
mere "rationalization". It achieved the intended
objective of ending the war.
But Israel wouldn't be able to claim that nuking
Gaza would end Hamas.

It definitely would. What do you think is going to happen once Israel takes hold of Gaza after this war ends? Israel is going claim that Hamas has been defeated. It doesn't matter if there are still members alive.

EDIT: Also, the US couldn't know for sure if dropping the atomic bombs would have brought the war to an end. Therefore, as long as Israel has a good reason to believe it is going to accomplish this end, it is going to be on an equal circumstance.

 

[Revoltingest]

EDIT: Also, the US couldn't know for sure if dropping the atomic bombs would have brought the war to an end.

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.

 

[Father Heathen]

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?

This. The average Palestinian would be probably afraid to speak out in opposition to Hamas. Refusing to differentiate them and treating them like they're all part some sort of hive-mind is absurd.