Israel/Palestine thread

Is there any terrorist group based in the middle east you disagree with, victor?

I dont disparage the resistance.

I am def no fan of the USA and Israeli backed ISIS groups. nor the terrorist occupation forces of Israel that primarily target civilians.

We can rephrase it since you won’t answer it currently

Is it ok to kill 50k civilians to save 5k civilians from certain death later?

Israel is 9 million people. Russia is around 150 million. Of course there are many things Russia could do Israel can't. At some point size matters.

The idea that a country of 9 million could actually control and pacify a hostile urban proto-state of 2 million people being constantly supplied small arms by outside actors is laughable. The success Israel has had in the Gaza campaign is actually fairly amazing and a testament to their efficacy; but there are obviously limits due to resources and manpower.

And like the US they are a democracy, which means political limits, especially as pertains to number of ones own soldiers they can sacrifice.

Also, it seems a lot of your really have memory holed 10/7. Israel going into Gaza was in response to a violent invasion from Gaza. It wasn't some meticulously planned operation that had all the bases covered.

It can surely be ok, depending on who the 50k dead civilians are (which country they are from). The only moral imperative of a leader is toward the citizens of his nation, not "humanity".

Keep in mind that all nations already do this, when you spend for your citizens healthcare incredible sums and almost 0 for very cheap interventions that could save lives elsewhere. We *already* all live according to that asymmetrical value of life principle

One of the things that Trolly, Victor, and others do all the time, is take any pain and suffering occurring in Israel, and say "BUT THIS PAIN IS WORSE" as they gesture over at Gaza. And they do it over and over again. And Victor adds an extra spicy layer where he even says that if you don't acknowledge the Palestinian trauma at the same time, you somehow think it's deserved (or worse you're somehow complicit).

Prima facie most people (specially on the left) think this makes sense. And believe me the Victor/Trolly method is everywhere. It's why in my local neighborhood Facebook group this year, wishing people Happy Hanukkah was deemed "insensitive". It's why people tear down the hostage posters. It's why the very act of speaking out for the victims of October 7th (Bono recently for example) makes you some sort of genocide supporting monster.

But of course, this logic isn't just false, it's potentially patently absurd. It's designed to just put down/shut down the Israeli/Jew or the Jew supporter.

In this thread, I have gone through great lengths to discuss how horrific the Palestinian experience must be. So horrific in fact that I cannot and will not ever fully comprehend that. We understand some of the ways in which their experience is surely nightmarish. But the Israeli trauma, I know really really well. I can share my experiences there, and I can share that without scorekeeping.

So when a poster is asking about what rocket attacks are like in Israel, the topic is Israel. We are talking about the experience of those people. Their experience in rocket-range communities, is significantly worse than say being in Orlando Florida. When people talk about what dinner time is like in Orlando, I would be INSANE to say "ok but it's way worse in Southern Israel!!!! ".

It's not a contest. Horrible things are horrible. Full stop. We are allowed to share how horrible they are, and every time we forget to (or don't) append "but it's worse in Gaza" isn't a spot for you to score points. Nobody is keeping score.

The power scale and pain scale is not the most effective way to care for each other guys. And it's one of the biggest face plants the left is making today. Care for everyone who is in pain. You may discover it makes you a better person, and helps more people overall.

How absurd do our dialogues become if before ever reply in make in here, I paste:

"disclaimer: I know it's worse for the people in Gaza, and I hope for an end to their suffering soon". At some point that becomes meaningless and trite.

So if you want to discuss the pain in Gaza Victor, I am ready. And I don't care that the Gazans are suffering less than the Jews in Auschwitz did. Know why? Because it doesn't matter, it doesn't diminish their experiences even a little, and the points aren't being tallied.

well Im really not sure why you posted about that trauma. probably get banned for speculating.

No that’s way different.

So is it ok for Israel to kill 50k Palestinians to in order to save 5k lives later?

That has been the model for every war before this one, minus a few exceptions I'm sure we can drum up. So I don't know about "ok", but I can safely say it's "how it works".

Before congress/senate type institutions would end wars for budgetary reasons, wars would end exactly one way: One side would suffer a decisive crushing loss, and one an overwhelming victory. That's war. In the absence of that, you get forever wars.

When someone clearly and decisively loses, terms are met, and then the killing typically stops. If the loss wasn't decisive enough, maybe there's a part 2 twenty or thirty years later. But that war would typically end decisively, and that was the end of it.

And in those wars, your ratios were entirely the norm. These scalpel precision wars where civilians don't die, they don't exist. They've never existed. 10 to 1 is just par for the (horrific) course.

Two final points:

1) Hamas owned up to 6k dead fighters the other day. Let's be realistic and agree that's 8-10k most likely then (based on the cloak of lies across all the rest of their war measures). That means we're looking at closer to 3:1 to 5:1 in a urban conflict in a tiny area, where one side is very willingly using human shields. That's as low a ratio as you're going to see compared to the historical figures. But nobody wants to point that out.

2) Israel isn't allowed a decisive victory. In the last 3 wars they were told to stop, and they did. That's a matter of historical fact. I'm not sure what other country is held to that standard. But in this case, the lack of a decisive victory probably just means more forever war. Same as it always works out.

Which trauma Victor?

Obviously that’s how it works.

I asked if it was ok

Why is answering yes or no questions so difficult for you guys

Because answers about tradeoffs require details, details matter.

When it changed from "might" to certain, and when the civilians are from an enemy population, it becomes very easy to answer.

Better question would be which ratio is the limit, 10:1, 30:1, 100:1? Not as easy to answer but my guess is "in the hundreds to 1"

I am not sure what point you were making about the Israeli trauma from the rockets.

Would you let 10 random people die to save your favorite family member?

If the answer is yes, I think it's kinda of tough to question on a 10:1 civilian casualty ratio in war. The :1 on that side is someone's mom/dad/brother/sister/son/daughter.

That only counting bodies vastly underestimates the damage Hamas inflicted on Israelin civilians many times without provocation in the last 17 years

I would easily choose my children over entire foreign countries without blinking and without regret tbh

I am pointing out that sure, most rockets hit nothing (on a percentage basis, since he asked). But enough of them DO hit something that it creates a total panic in the society, and in particular robs children of a proper childhood. The amount of children in therapy is astounding. But that is what terrorism is. That's where the name came from. It's designed to keep you in perpetual fear/terror.

When the bombs were exploding in the markets in Jerusalem (which is what got the wall built), most people in Israel didn't die doing groceries. But EVERY citizen worried constantly that they might. When you got on a bus (another favorite bomb target), you always wondered if your bus was going to be the next bus. And everyone was an equal target, didn't matter if you were a civilian or a soldier, your skin color, your age/sex, or your religion.

True story, my family split the kids up to attend different schools so they'd take different buses. And this was a very very common move among parents. I hear that story literally all the time. Imagine that threat level as a parent, every single day. You go mad.

ok this justifies the treatments towards the Gazans and Palestinians? again, whats your point?

Israel didnt snap after Oct 7. they were already completely unhinged.

The moral standard that the state of Israel should live up to in response to 10/7 is no different than what it is for a person who has been attacked. You can morally use reasonable force. You can protect yourself. If someone invades your home you can shoot them, but you can't bomb their home killing their children - not even if they killed yours. If they promise to invade your home again can you break down their door and shoot them and put their children at risk? Yeah, probably, but you still have a moral duty to take reasonable care not to kill their children.

(and of course that's just pretending everything started on 10/7 - you have a much higher responsibility towards people you have been confining which includes the children of Hamas fighters - and that goes for all their adult relatives too who have just been minding their own business trying to live the best lives they can)

And Victor is right about Israel not "snapping" just after 10/7. Israel's attacks have always been an order of magnitude or more severe than anything Hamas has done, so this is not really any different and like the thing where snipers were shooting the legs of Gazan demonstrators, there's plenty of history of targeting non-combatants.

it's funny when I replied to that post, I KNEW the last sentence would send you guys on this tangent (I added it right at the end). I'll know better for next time.

What about the original point we were discussing? Since that's what you asked about, and that's what I responded to.

I cant find the point tbh. Israel's suffer from trauma due to rockets that have almost no chance to hit them? I dont doubt that. ok cool.

You definitely don't have a moral duty to risk your life more than necessary (going there in person instead of bombinb) to preserve other people lives when pursuing a NAP violator lol. If he knows he is being targeted by someone with bombs, the moral responsibility for collateral damage is entirely his if he hides near civilians. Every single palestinian life killed in the pursuit of hamas is being killed by hamas, that's the core part you guys deny , even if it's absolutely obvious and true for everyone else.

It's all hamas , every one of them.

Your reasoning according to which we can never use bombs if the targets are smart enough (=if they use human shields) is self-handicapping to a degree that helps criminals immensely.