Israel-Gaza war

[Mechavada]

Two thoughts:

1. Wow this thread sucks.
2. Wow you guys SUCK.

If there's a thread that makes a solid argument for me leaving this forum because of insane ass bullsh**t, this one is it.  I've heard enough genocide fantasies on both sides to make me understand why some folks want to live in Mars.

-The Man

[Mechavada]

People like Vosem don't consider military dictatorship in the West Bank or 20,000 dead women/children "violence" because Palestinian lives don't really matter to them. Just a statistic or a nuisance.

Yeah, the issue is that if Hamas wins then participants in the next dozen conflicts will be incentivized to make those bigger statistics.

Wars with many more than 20,000 dead have been justified in the past, and wars with many more than 20,000 dead will be justified in the future. But we can try to set up norms today which will make future bloody wars less likely. (This is why Hamas should unconditionally surrender and agree in good faith to carry out Israeli policies.)

Does the life of any Palestinian matter to you at all? Or is this just an extension of your Social Darwinism?

I think letting Hamas win (even in some symbolic way; they must either be destroyed or repudiate their beliefs and work towards letting their former enemies win) would create a world where there are many more wars and those wars are much more deadly; even beyond this, Palestinian liberationism as an ideology offensive to ordinary principles of justice, for much the same reasons fascism was. Nationalism is acceptable, for any nation, but for peace to be preserved it can never come at the expense of an existing nation. Palestinian nationalism may not be anti-Zionist for the same reason German nationalism may not be anti-Polish, or Argentine nationalism anti-Falklander.

I think that Israel should fight in a way that minimizes civilian casualties where possible; that there have been only 20,000 deaths total out of a population of 2 million (of whom something like 7,000 are estimated to be militants), where their enemy openly uses human shields, suggests very strongly to me that this is happening. But in principle, I think if Hamas fought in a way that meant that they could not be defeated except by killing every person in Gaza, then I think that should be done (and if they fought in a way that meant that they could not be defeated except by killing every person on Earth, my very strong instinct would be to call their bluff). Fiat iustitia, ruat caelum.

The idea that we should give in to the demands of militant groups if not doing so would cause many death is evil, and needs to die. I don't know whether this codes as a 'yes' or 'no' answer to your question ("Do the lives of any Palestinian matter to you at all?" -- they matter as much as that of any other person, so a lot but not more than humanity's future ability to thrive in peace). Your question, fundamentally, codes to me pretty strongly as 'this is the wrong question to ask, to a degree which implies that the person asking it is confused about basic aspects of reality, or is living in a different reality from me'.

(Also, what do you mean by 'Social Darwinism'? Do you mean that I think people should be permitted to purchase access to healthcare instead of forcing them to live in societies where access to healthcare is impossible in principle? I also think that is just, yes, and in principle worth fighting and dying for.)

So 20,000 dead, the majority of which you've just admitted are civilians, are acceptable casualties to you?

In order to even take your argument seriously, we have to start from the viewpoint that Palestinians are less than human.

Edit: Just saw the part I bolded. Holy s**t you're evil.

I mean, to defeat Hamas, yes, absolutely. But I don't think this means Palestinians are less than human: I would say the same about any other people in that position. The people who raised me fought in years-long wars with orders of magnitude more civilian casualties in every battle, and I think they were right to do so. (My great-grandfather was part of a partisan group which relayed information to a government bombing the area where most of that partisan group's homes were, and most of the people in that group belonged to an ethnicity that government had deliberately starved less than a decade earlier. And they were right to do so.) The struggle against evil will always be with us, but by not giving in to the propaganda that makes you think that you should give up on a war because of civilian casualties, you can at least reduce the number of civilian casualties in the long run.

Also, really, I would've thought the sentence immediately after the bolded one would've upset you more than the one you bolded.

So now civilian causalities are propaganda?

Bloody hell.

Acid is a hell of a drug.

[Mechavada]

Challenge Accepted, عزيزي المنافس

[Mechavada]

That post is extremely long and all over the place and I have no idea what core point you are even trying to make.

If you're too stupid to follow along, just say that

And you've made posts that are even longer. Again, why do you think you're the only person who can make lengthy posts? Do you think you're special or something?

About 55% of Bourbon's post (I'm assuming that's who he's responding to) was quotes by General MacArthur, lol.  Which makes this complaint lolzier.

[Mechavada]

That post is extremely long and all over the place and I have no idea what core point you are even trying to make.

Are you trying to claim that Israel is lying and they did in fact massacre hundreds of people with guns and tank fire?  I thought that was what we were discussing.

If so, providing a smorgasbord of links to other bad things Israel has done does not contribute anything.

And frankly I am getting really annoyed with the constant tangents where you write at length about bad things Israel has done that aren't related to the topic under discussion, and then demand that I condemn them or address them or acknowledge them.  And then say like, "it's very telling that Mac still hasn't addressed (thing that has nothing to do with what we're talking about).

"Not related to the topic under discussion?"

How is it not?

For years, nay decades, we have heard the tale of the great humanitarian military policy of the Israeli government.  We have heard such things as "Israel warns people before bombing them", "Israel goes out of it's way to prevent civilian casualties", blah blah blah and over the past several months we have seen instance after instance where this has been proven false.  "Israel is very safe about not killing civilians": Israel undergoes a mass bombardment of Gaza.  "Israel has advanced military capabilities that can prevent attacks and minimize civilian casualties": on October 7th the Iron Dome doesn't stop hundreds of rockets from hitting Israeli settlements and Hamas militants break through the defense perimeter for hours killing both IDF and civilians.  The death toll keeps going up as the news comes in.  Later there is no evidence at all of "smart bomb" technology or techniques as Israel forces pulverize northern Gaza into rubble.  They have drones, they have infrared heat seeking technology, they got all sorts of things they can use to strategically target certain places.  Instead they indiscriminately bomb Gaza and force it's residents to flee towards the southern border with Egypt.  IDF soldiers shoot several of the Israeli hostages held by Hamas.

We're told these guys have world class training and have the highest moral standing among the nations of the Earth.  Yet this conflict has shown time and time again this is clearly not the case.  But you want to argue that we should believe the Boy Who Cried Humanitarianism because these are all different situations in the broader conflict?

I can't even.

[Mechavada]

Folks, can we just stop with the enormously toxic practice of claiming certain folks have mental illnesses based on conjecture?

Thanks.

[Mechavada]

Stop

Should he have said that anyone who criticises the Israeli war effort wants to finish what Hitler started instead? It is quite something that you are trying to criticise Vosem when you have said far worse yourself.

To my knowledge Mr. X has never claimed that anyone who criticizes Israel wants to finish what Hitler started.  I've had disagreements with him on this subject but to my recollection this is an argument I've never ever heard from him.  He might imply that some critics (like we all know who) are anti-Semitic but I've never seen him make such a blanket statement.   He sure as hell has never accused me of wanting to do that.  He seems to be putting in a legitimate effort to analyze the conflict beyond his perspective.  I've always had some disagreements with Mr. X on the Israel-Gaza issue but it helps to know where he's coming from.

People on here often say things in the heat of the moment.  I sure have.  I'm a human being.  And often times the one thing that saved me was when someone on here, regardless of what they said before, just told me to "stop" or "you're being a dick".  Mr. X is letting the better angels of his nature win, he's choosing to say out loud that ascribing blanket statements of mental illness to people is toxic as hell, regardless of what he thinks of the people being described that way.

Me and him are on differing sides of Israel-Gaza, but right now in this moment we are allies in the battle against this kind of shaming.  Sorry man, I'm taking a W on this one instead of looking the gift horse in its mouth.

EDIT: Reread the post and had to edit some points for clarification.