Hamas strike on Israel - mod warning in OP updated 19/10/23

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121826374#Comment_121826374

What ceasefire did Israel break?

Are you forgetting about homemade rockets launched into Israel by Hamas over the past decade?

It seems to me, that any argument I make for non-violent Palestinian resistance is beyond the pale.

So in essence, people here do support the Palestinian armed struggle, thus they support Hamas by proxy, but won't admit it or say it. People can't have it every way. Id rather people be honest.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121822559#Comment_121822559

I’m not the one who theorized he may have directly witnessed something. This sub thread started with such an assertion, maybe you should read back.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121826397#Comment_121826397

It need not be an either/or proposition, This goes back to discussions from the very beginnings of this thread. There is an argument to be made for armed resistance against an occupier or a power who is oppressing you. Non-violence can work, but not always and it is situation-dependant. The problem, from my perspective, isn’t that the Palestines chose to fight, but how they chose to fight. I suspect the response might not be quite what we are seeing now four months later had hamas not chosen a somewhat… medieval form of armed resistance on 7 October.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121826412#Comment_121826412

I think that the figures are now that just under 700 civilians died on October 7th. About 1200 Israelis in total. Obviously the number should have been zero. It is posited on here many times that such figures warrant and excuse the subsequent actions and killings by Israel in Gaza.

I think it is fair enough for someone to have that opinion if they want. All I'd ask for them is to be consistent. Lets ignore the fact that some of the people killed on that day were killed by "friendly fire" either through confusion or chaos, or as a result of the Hannibal Directive, and instead attribute all of them to Hamas.

Now, the thing is, to get 1000+ Palestinians killed by the IDF before 7th October, you only have to go back 3-4 years. So my obvious question for those excusing and justifying IDF action in killing tens of thousands since Oct 7th is what would the 1000+ Palestinians killed in the 3-4 years leading up to that day justify for Hamas? My position is that I don't think either justifies any more killing. But there are many who think it justifies for one side only and not the other.

The playing pitch (for want of a better term) is not level. There is no way that the likes of Hamas could have sustained a 3-4 year long campaign killing Israelis at the same rate that Israelis were killing Palestinians. Is your issue, vis-a-vis "how they chose to fight", predicated on the fact that they did it in one day rather than over time? I don't see how spreading the killings over time really make that much of a difference. If the most salient issue is the murder of the 1000+ people (which I think it should be) then shouldn't the same apply to the 1000+ Palestinans killed leading up to it.

The thing is that I only took the 3-4 years immediately preceding Oct 7th so that the numbers would be around the same. Once you start including 4/5/6/7 years etc, then you begin to dwarf the Oct 7th number in any case.

circadian

https://mondoweiss.net/2024/02/extraordinary-charges-of-bias-emerge-against-nytimes-reporter-anat-schwartz/

why did the Times hire her?!

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121826431#Comment_121826431

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be asking if I think that numbers and rates may be relevant when discussing matters of principle such as justification for armed action. IMO ratios and rates etc don't enter into the equation.

Consider. If we take the figure of 1,000 Palestinians killed over three years as entirely unjustified killings, that's 30 a month, and we'll add in, say, an acre of Palestinian territory a month taken over by settlements or whatever (I've no idea the actual figures, this is for the example). Does this give rise to the principle of legitimacy of armed resistance? It would seem reasonable to me that it would. What if the figures were actually only 3 a month, and an acre a year? Does the legitimacy of armed resistance decrease? I don't think it would. Armed resistance would still be moral in the absence of any other viable alternatives, all that is different is a delay in the same result. What would decrease would be the capability of that resistance, as fewer Palestinians might feel inclined to rock boats, risk repercussions, etc by supporting such armed resistance. And the reverse would go the other way. If it were 300,000 killed a month, and an acre taken every five minutes, it seems not unreasonable that the entire Palestinian nation would be up in arms. And probably allies as well. The capability would increase, the principle would not change. Commensurate with that level of capability is likely to be the goal. At a lower level of capability, the goal is likely something akin to just "Leave us alone". At the higher level of total war, with sufficient allies, it could be "March on Tel Aviv and depose the Prime Minister." But the principle of armed resistance remains.

Are we agreed thus far?

If so, we'll continue. It works both ways. A few rockets at Israel, and you might get a small bomb or the like going the other way. There's going to be no political desire in Israel to do much more than that. Mobilisations and wars cost money and pull people away from their lives. Piss off enough Israelis, say by killing and kidnapping some soldiers, and you'll get a more robust military response. The Israeli goal of 2006 was the reduction of Hezbollah as a threat by indirect fire, and the return of kidnapped soldiers. The destruction of Hezbollah or its overall capability was not a goal. But piss off every single Israeli by going on an utterly unrestrained rampage, the capabilities which will be made available in return and the goals given accordingly are going to be much greater. This was no military raid by a non-government organization like Hezbollah carried out, this was a large scale terror attack on civilians by a foreign government well beyond the boundaries of anything even remotely authorised under the laws of war. The Israeli goal of the elimination of Hamas as an organised body capable of conducting attacks is I think a reasonable one in the circumstances. There is no need to wait for a second attack to tally 1,400 just to 'make things even', the principle already exists. There is no way that goal is going to be achieved without a -lot- of Palestinian deaths, and that number was never going to be '700' or whatever. There is no 'acceptable' number or ratio. The legitimate, if callous, answer for the amount of Palestinian and Israeli casualties is "As many as it takes, but no more than necessary." Thus is the nature of war. Is Israel killing more than necessary? Perhaps, but that's a different argument. It might be the difference between 10,000 dead and 15,000 or between 2,000 and 200,000, but the numbers have no relevance to the losses taken the other way. As a matter of principle, for example, the laws of proportionality say that you can't carpet bomb a city to kill a guy with a rifle, that casualties caused must be reasonable with respect to the military goal. No numbers or ratios are given. They also don't say that you have to have a proportional amount of losses on each side.

It's not a level playing field, no. Which is why due consideration needs to be taken before you jab a bear with a pointy stick. Even if the bear is stealing your honey, the bear is going to feel somewhat aggrieved in return and cannot be blamed for the response.

And before anyone tries to justify on the basis of "who started it", it's irrelevant for two reasons. 1) The history is so long and complicated that getting a simple answer seems impossible. It goes back generations, and whoever started it isn't likely alive any more anyway. A pox on both houses as far as that goes. 2) The laws of the conduct of war don't care who started it anyway. They care that you have a legitimate reason to fight, a reasonable goal for the circumstances, and fight in a reasonable manner.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121826352#Comment_121826352

No, that's not what anyone has said but that's how you have chosen to interpret it.

The hoops you jump through to defend Israel and its murderous apartheid regime is mind-blowing.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121826366#Comment_121826366

They've tried non violence, they still get shot, their kids still get kidnapped off the streets and locked away for months, they still get murdered, they still have their homes/land stolen, they still don't have freedom of movement, they still cannot trade freely.

I'll ask again (and you won't answer) how much oppression you would stand for before you say enough is enough?

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121826370#Comment_121826370

"Only hope for the future and the future of their children"

Their children he says.

Imagine you're at home waiting for your 12 year to come home but he doesn't, you go looking for him and eventually go to the police (israeli army) who says they have no idea where he is.

You eventually find out that he was arrested by the IDF (for some minor infraction) and taken into custody, your child has been taken to a military facility where he is held for months, he's not allowed legal representation until a day or 2 before his "trial" which is not a trial as you or I would know but a military trial.

His lawyer can't give him much of a defence because the IDF have refused to provide any evidence citing secrecy and his lawyer can't question any "witnesses" because again the IDF class all evidence as "secret".

Your 12 year old child has been beaten/tortured while in "prison" and is scared, you watch as he is charged with minor crimes and sentenced to years in a military prison with no right to appeal his sentence.

This happens on a daily basis, now again I'll ask, how much oppression like this would you stand for until you fmsay enough is enough?

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121826383#Comment_121826383

Well that's just another lie

Raoul Duke III

That's a great post Manic Moran.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121826431#Comment_121826431

I think that the figures are now that just under 700 civilians died on October 7th.

763 according to the best sources.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121826619#Comment_121826619

Non-violent resistance can be successful.

From MLK, to Mandela to Ghandi. These are examples of it working.

What is not working is continued Palestinian armed resistance. Are people seriously saying that it has? Just look at where it has gotten them.

Do you support continued armed resistance and violence from Palestinians including Hamas?

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121826863#Comment_121826863

How many were killed by the IDF?

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121826624#Comment_121826624

They've tried non violence,

When exactly?

Armed resistance and hate towards its Jewish neighbour has always been a feature with Palestinians, especially the leadership and Hamas of course.

Violence gave rise to men like Sharon and Bibi. They had the chance for a 2 state solution, but Arafat said no. They blew it. The results of this are now self evident.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121826891#Comment_121826891

MLK, Ghandi, Mandela were figureheads for their causes and while they called for peaceful resistance the fact is there was also armed/violent resistance alongside those causes.

"continued Palestinian armed resistance"

At least you are acknowledging that they are resisting, now explain what are they resisiting and why?

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121826642#Comment_121826642

I think you missed the bit where I said that Hamas surrender. Do you think they should surrender? The war isnt going too well for them.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121826709#Comment_121826709

Do you support Hamas? Genuine question

If not why?

If so why?

Then you might get to the nugget of my point.

One can't have it both ways.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121826925#Comment_121826925

And you think it's going well for Israel?

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121826893#Comment_121826893

Verified?

One so far.

That was Doron Katz-Asher who was killed while being driven away in a tractor.

Not sure what that has to do with anything but to go down the rabbit hole of a conspiracy theory that has been debunked.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121826957#Comment_121826957

If its been "debunked" then why are the IDF investigating?

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121826911#Comment_121826911

MLK, Ghandi, Mandela were figureheads for their causes and while they called for peaceful resistance the fact is there was also armed/violent resistance alongside those causes.

Can you elaborate, as you seem to be light on the details?

For example, what armed resistance did the civil rights leaders of the 1960s engage in in the US?

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121826953#Comment_121826953

In a way, yes, without being crude about it.

On what objective measure is it going well for Palestine, especially Gaza?

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121826527#Comment_121826527

The issue is, that while you are ostensibly trying to project a neutral view, it is starting from the point that Israel are right, and therefore you mould your answer around it.

If you want to argue that the anger of Israelis justifies or excuses killing tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians, then you have to apply that to Hamas. If you want to argue that because Israel is the bigger and stronger bear which means that it is expected and acceptable for them to attack the weaker party (i.e. some form of "might is right"), then you have to apply the same logic to the situation when armed militants with AK47s are entering your kibbutz.

If Israel's big US brother suddenly pulled all support and left it at the mercy of the supposed enemies that surround it, and said hypothetical enemies attacked it and killed huge numbers of Israelis, then you'd have to say "well they poked the bear so all is fair" too.

BTW, I never said anything about Israel waiting for more victims to sate their bloodlust. My point is that if you want to have the view that Israel is justified and excused in killing tens of thousands, maiming many more, and destroying millions of people's livelihoods and homes, in retaliation for 1000+ Israelis being killed, then all I'd ask is consistency and apply the same to Hamas. But that argument will then descend to a "who started it" one because if one thinks Hamas were justified and excused for Oct 7th, then that must remove some legitimacy from Israel's response.

And to repeat again, I don't think either is justified. I just highlight the contradictory standards commonly applied by many people who've already chosen a "side"

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121826863#Comment_121826863

What's the point of this?

Noted antisemitic French media published 695 which came out of the noted antisemitic Israeli social security system.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-israel-social-security-data-reveals-true-picture-of-oct-7-deaths

What's the point or relevance of you arguing what was originally a non-specific number anyway? Make it 900 you want. It doesn't change the point I made

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121827027#Comment_121827027

I never said MLK engaged in violence I said he was a figurehead for the civil rights movement, the civil rights movement had MANY different factions, these included the black panthers who did engage in violence.

You can't just say MLK, Ghandi, Mandela etc as if they were the be all and end all of civil rights movements and therefore there was no violence in civil rights campaigns in their respective countries.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121827046#Comment_121827046

It's not, it's going terribly for them and I can't see it getting any better in the immediate future.

But it's not going great for Israel either, high losses of troops, high losses of equipment and turned into a pariah state worldwide with massive condemnation from populations across the globe.

They've guaranteed that unless they agree to a full ceasefire as well and stop their apartheid regime against Palestinians the world will turn against them even more as pressure is put on them through protests and boycotting of their goods.

Timberrrrrrrr

Remember kids

When they defend israels actions they're defending Israel's continued genocide in Gaza.

"

Unicef warns of increase in 'unbearable level of child deaths in Gaza' due to malnutrition

UN agency Unicef has warned the Gaza Strip is poised to witness an increase in what an official said was “the already unbearable level of child deaths” due to a worsening food crisis."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/feb/20/middle-east-crisis-live-israel-gaza-yemen-houthi-lebanon-hague-court-justice?CMP=share_btn_tw&page=with%3Ablock-65d4650d8f08f68df4ca9a84#block-65d4650d8f08f68df4ca9a84

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121827158#Comment_121827158

You should read your own soures as it backs up my post.

The final death toll from the attack is now thought to be 695 Israeli civilians, including 36 children, as well as 373 security forces and 71 foreigners, giving a total of 1,139.

695 Israeli civilians + 71 foreign civilians = 763 civilians.

Seems to be 2 more than what my post says.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121827217#Comment_121827217

The final death toll from the attack is now thought to be 695 Israeli civilians, including 36 children, as well as 373 security forces and 71 foreigners, giving a total of 1,139.

You miss the point completely.

Change happened in those countries, led by those people because they followed non-violent means.

Just because some fringe elements advocate more violent means does not detract from my point.

Just because the Black Panthers advocated violence, does not detract from the Civil Rights movement and its achievements. People look at the movement and celebrate its achievements, they don't celebrate the Black Panthers.

The same can be said for Gandhi and Mandela.

Also, those fringe elements never blew themselves up on a bus full of civilians, or massacred entire villages full of women and kids.

Notably, you wont answer the question on the use of violence, however.