A Political Thread pt. 2

[Welsh Exile]

******* hell

Do they stack up for you? I think we're operating off different definitions to be honest.

 

[McTallshort]

No, that's a strawman. I never made a normative claim, I asked a descriptive question about how many people are dying of starvation seeing as there is apparently a famine (you referenced Somalia where over qtr of a million people died of starvation) so I thought a good bench mark.

No it's not a strawman it's exactly what you are saying. If the Russians or Serbs were doing exactly what the Israelis were doing your opinion would be completely different

 

[McTallshort]

Do they stack up for you? I think we're operating off different definitions to be honest.

I think you are using word salad to justify the most brutal attack on a civilian population since the 2nd world war

 

[Welsh Exile]

No it's not a strawman it's exactly what you are saying. If the Russians or Serbs were doing exactly what the Israelis were doing your opinion would be completely different

No it is. I never made a normative claim. I NEVER said it is ok to do anything. So yes, a complete strawman. I asked, seeing as it's said there is a famine and people are starving to death how many are we talking. It was a genuine question as the last I saw on it was last year and a lot can change in that time (thigh I've not seen anything on the news about thousands dying from starvation)

If it makes you feel better I can make the extremely vanilla take and say that it is bad. Not good. I wish people across the world had all the food they could eat and there was no war.

I would probably ask the same question and have the exact same view on it actually.

 

[Welsh Exile]

I think you are using word salad to justify the most brutal attack on a civilian population since the 2nd world war

Yemen, Syria, Iraq, China, but agree to disagree I suppose. I certainly don't think it's good.

 

[McTallshort]

No it is. I never made a normative claim. I NEVER said it is ok to do anything. So yes, a complete strawman. I asked, seeing as it's said there is a famine and people are starving to death how many are we talking. It was a genuine question as the last I saw on it was last year and a lot can change in that time (thigh I've not seen anything on the news about thousands dying from starvation)

If it makes you feel better I can make the extremely vanilla take and say that it is bad. Not good. I wish people across the world had all the food they could eat and there was no war.

I would probably ask the same question and have the exact same view on it actually.

Your problem is people using the word genocide when it comes to what Israel are doing correct?

 

[Welsh Exile]

Your problem is people using the word genocide when it comes to what Israel are doing correct?

And words like famine and starvation. If I think of starvation (unless people are saying things like "at risk" before) then I think of Somalia or Yemen or something. I think of tens of thousands of people dying over the course of several months but I'm not seeing that. Obviously what I am seeing is not good but then I can look at any war and see things that are not good.

Edit, sorry to answer your question maybe not problem but disagreement. As I've said, I think it's a war. A quite unique urban war to be precise.

 

[Reiser99]

I mean, Isreal only fall under any of them if you can prove intent.

Isreals intentions stated currently are very clear, to rescue hostages and destroy Hamas. They have not claimed to want to eradicate Palestinians, or commit any of the genocidal definitions above, they merely don't care about the damage they cause or the civilians who get in the way.

Isreal would point to acts such as leaflet drops, on an area, stating their intentions, and highlighting anyone left in the area would be deemed a combatant. I think I read somewhere that IDF consult lawyers before these types of actions.

Ultimately, as @Welsh Exile stated, there are always war crimes committed, Isreal certainly are committing their fare share, as are Hamas by using civilians as shields.

There was a really good guardian article about the term 'if I knew than what I knew now' that's been used recently, think the Iraq war, or Clinton's failed campaign, this term may well become as prominent in this case, but it remains to be seen.

EDIT: found it.

Israel is clear about its intentions in Gaza – world leaders cannot plead ignorance of what is coming | Owen Jones

The UN is warning of a ‘risk of genocide’ against Palestinians. Future pleas of ‘If I knew then what I know now’ will not cut it, says Guardian columnist Owen Jones

www.theguardian.com

Got to love the old 'we didn't intend for it to happen' argument.

"Sorry about killing all the Palestinian's but they just kept fighting back or getting in the way instead of surrendering."

Saying genocide only happens by intent is preposterous. It happens through actions and Israel has killed tens thousands of Palestinians through violence, starvation or lack of health care and then you have nearly 2 million displaced. It's completely disproportionate to the Hamas attack on Israel and at this stage it is far beyond defeating Hamas. It is about seizing Gaza and removing all Palestinian by force, whether they end up dead or in another country.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Got to love the old 'we didn't intend for it to happen' argument.

"Sorry about killing all the Palestinian's but they just kept fighting back or getting in the way instead of surrendering."

Saying genocide only happens by intent is preposterous. It happens through actions and Israel has killed tens thousands of Palestinians through violence, starvation or lack of health care and then you have nearly 2 million displaced. It's completely disproportionate to the Hamas attack on Israel and at this stage it is far beyond defeating Hamas. It is about seizing Gaza and removing all Palestinian by force, whether they end up dead or in another country.

By your definition every war in history has involved genocides.

You may think intent as a core tenant of genocide is preposterous but that's what the word means.

 

[McTallshort]

And words like famine and starvation. If I think of starvation (unless people are saying things like "at risk" before)

Why? The UN are saying 1.3m people are at risk of starvation. Why would that word bother you if that's the reality of the situation? Is it going to take trucks full of bodies to convince you? Starvation isn't a quick death, it takes time and the figures are difficult to put together even years after the event because children in particular die of other health conditions related to lack of nutrition. To dismiss the concerns of every aid organisation on the ground because you don't like the word being used is I'm afraid ******* pathetic. I don't know why you are so quick to give the Israelis a pass (this isn't the first time we have disagreed on this) and frankly I don't care but if you had 1.3m Ukrainian civilians couped up in a city by the Russians and the Russians were stopping food and medical supplies coming in while simultaneously bombing hospitals you would absolutely not would worrying about words like genocide, famine or starvation.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Why? The UN are saying 1.3m people are at risk of starvation. Why would that word bother you if that's the reality of the situation? Is it going to take trucks full of bodies to convince you? Starvation isn't a quick death, it takes time and the figures are difficult to put together even years after the event because children in particular die of other health conditions related to lack of nutrition. To dismiss the concerns of every aid organisation on the ground because you don't like the word being used is I'm afraid ******* pathetic. I don't know why you are so quick to give the Israelis a pass (this isn't the first time we have disagreed on this) and frankly I don't care but if you had 1.3m Ukrainian civilians couped up in a city by the Russians and the Russians were stopping food and medical supplies coming in while simultaneously bombing hospitals you would absolutely not would worrying about words like genocide, famine or starvation.

I wouldn't have any problem if people were saying, like the UN are, "at risk" you may think thats pedantic but when people are saying things like "look at these genocidal Isrealis enforcing apartheid and making people live in concentration camps and starving people to death (ok I'm being a bit hyperbolic hear clearly as no one is saying that on here) then a few red flags go off for me and I start to think they're a bit brain rotted or can't look at things objectively. So I'll ask a question, to clarify then we can all be on the same page and agree on, there are food shortages, people are at risk but perhaps comparing to other famines where hundreds of thousands of people died is perhaps not accurate.

I think the only similarity to the Ukraine conflict is Putin, like Hamas, invaded a sovereign country whose borders are internationally recognised and Isreal have the right to respond militarily as do Ukraine. We can obviously discuss their methods and the effectiveness or the morality of it but that's separate.

Out of interest, as a military guy yourself, how would you have responded to October 7th?

 

[McTallshort]

Out of interest, as a military guy yourself, how would you have responded to October 7th?

Well that's the wrong question to ask a (ex) military guy because insurgency wars are nearly always ended by politicians not soldiers. Squddies are given a military task to perform which might improve the situation on the ground but not the overall solution. The current political situation in the Israeli parliament and the Hamas leadership means you can bomb and rocket each other all day long but there will never be peace and it's really down who can crush the other in that regard Israel has all the cards and they are absolutely using them and although you will disagree are treating this as an opportunity to settle more land and make life for the Palestinians more difficult.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Well that's the wrong question to ask a (ex) military guy because insurgency wars are nearly always ended by politicians not soldiers. Squddies are given a military task to perform which might improve the situation on the ground but not the overall solution. The current political situation in the Israeli parliament and the Hamas leadership means you can bomb and rocket each other all day long but there will never be peace and it's really down who can crush the other in that regard Israel has all the cards and they are absolutely using them and although you will disagree are treating this as an opportunity to settle more land and make life for the Palestinians more difficult.

What would you do though, just as a thought experiment. How would you have realistically like to have seen Isreal respond?

I said earlier I think since 67 Isreal has been colonial in nature. I don't think it started off like that but if they keep getting attacked they're more than happy to respond in kind and take territory.

 

[Flankers' paradise]

for the last 20 years or so Israel hasn't allowed foreign jounos to enter Gaza, and for the lasy year they've been trying to force the UN out - so it's nigh on impossible to have accurate data on how many people have died of starvation. At the same time the IDF has destroyed pretty much every hospital so there's no infastructure left for reporting or recording every death. and the proposal to clear them all out and live in camps in Egypt and Jordan...imagine if the british govt responded to an IRA bombing by forcing everyone in NI to live in camps in ROI or Scotland and bombed every school and hospital in NI....it's genocide at it's finest

 

[Welsh Exile]

for the last 20 years or so Israel hasn't allowed foreign jounos to enter Gaza, and for the lasy year they've been trying to force the UN out - so it's nigh on impossible to have accurate data on how many people have died of starvation. At the same time the IDF has destroyed pretty much every hospital so there's no infastructure left for reporting or recording every death. and the proposal to clear them all out and live in camps in Egypt and Jordan...imagine if the british govt responded to an IRA bombing by forcing everyone in NI to live in camps in ROI or Scotland and bombed every school and hospital in NI....it's genocide at it's finest

Imagine if the IRA exclusively targeted civilians and their stated aim was to wipe out every Brit on the planet and for the UK to seize to exist.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Imagine if the ANC killed a thousand civilians in one day as opposed to the 70 odd they killed over decades. But I guess it's all the Jews fault. They should've never taken that land that they were given and they should have just let themselves be genocided again after the biggest genocide in history.

 

[McTallshort]

What would you do though, just as a thought experiment. How would you have realistically like to have seen Isreal respond?

I said earlier I think since 67 Isreal has been colonial in nature. I don't think it started off like that but if they keep getting attacked they're more than happy to respond in kind and take territory.

Well I would wake up on October 8th and have 3 concerns in order of priority:

1. Is this the first of a number of attacks and are outside players like Hezbollah and Iran going to get involved.
2. How did the supposed best intelligence service in the world absolutely fail to spot this happening.
3. How do we get the hostages back.

So the first one is probably the most simple to react to and that would involve putting all the military assets at my disposal on alert and mobilise the reservists. Israel are more than capable of doing this and have done it before. I would then declare marshal law and flood key areas including Gaza with troops but with a pretty strict RoE which would put them on a more policing stance than an offensive one. All the while monitoring what Iran and their proxies are doing.

Second I would drag the head of Mossad by his nostrils into a room and demand to know why he missed such an attack and after that ask him what he now knew about the situation and ask him to make a list of possible locations for the hostages and which Hamas leaders could be "dealt" with while still keeping up the appearance of a policing/security operation.

Third I would speak to intermediaries between the us and Hamas (there will absolutely be some there always is) to discuss their release which would probably take a couple of years at least.

That's what I would do in the first few weeks but that's completely ignoring the political situation in Israel but if you could politically isolate Hamas while at the same time doing what the Israelis have done to Hezbollah and Iran you keep world opinion on your side and hopefully save the lives of more hostages.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Well I would wake up on October 8th and have 3 concerns in order of priority:

1. Is this the first of a number of attacks and are outside players like Hezbollah and Iran going to get involved.
2. How did the supposed best intelligence service in the world absolutely fail to spot this happening.
3. How do we get the hostages back.

So the first one is probably the most simple to react to and that would involve putting all the military assets at my disposal on alert and mobilise the reservists. Israel are more than capable of doing this and have done it before. I would then declare marshal law and flood key areas including Gaza with troops but with a pretty strict RoE which would put them on a more policing stance than an offensive one. All the while monitoring what Iran and their proxies are doing.

Second I would drag the head of Mossad by his nostrils into a room and demand to know why he missed such an attack and after that ask him what he now knew about the situation and ask him to make a list of possible locations for the hostages and which Hamas leaders could be "dealt" with while still keeping up the appearance of a policing/security operation.

Third I would speak to intermediaries between the us and Hamas (there will absolutely be some there always is) to discuss their release which would probably take a couple of years at least.

That's what I would do in the first few weeks but that's completely ignoring the political situation in Israel but if you could politically isolate Hamas while at the same time doing what the Israelis have done to Hezbollah and Iran you keep world opinion on your side and hopefully save the lives of more hostages.

didnt helzollah start firing rockets into Isreal on October 8th so I guess that answers number 1.

I think any troops sent into Gaza would've suffered heavy casualties on the Israeli side which probably would've been political suicide for anyone, even a liberal Israeli PM.

I imagine he would've told you the hostages are underground and would have been moved regularly.

I appreciate your answer though. It was a good one, and honest.

 

[dirty harry]

Yeah, I've seen a lot about food shortages, things like "facing" or "at risk" of starvation like in that article but not, you know, thousands of people dying which is what I consider a famine to be but then you'll maybe say my definition is too narrow like my definition of genocide.

Interesting you brought up Somalia. What, over qtr of a million dead from starvation there. Yemen and Syria again hundreds of thousands but yet big focus on Gaza again

Yemen always seem to get ignored, the atrocities there in the last decade...

 

[Welsh Exile]

Yemen always seem to get ignored, the atrocities there in the last decade...

Everywhere seems to get ignored in comparison to the worst state in the world, Isreal. The horrible genociding, population starving, concentration camp builders, apartheid enforcers, open air prison builders etc etc. I wonder why they seem to get a disproportionate amount of attention compared to other, far worse (at least by numbers) atrocities across the world.