Israel's conflict with its neighbours

[wjfox]

Kibbutz Kfar Aza: Hamas killed whole families

12 hours ago

The BBC's International Editor Jeremy Bowen has visited the village Kfar Aza - the site of a massacre committed by Hamas near the border with Gaza.

Israeli soldiers said that Hamas stormed in, burning homes and killing families. An Israeli officer told the BBC that some of the dead had been beheaded.

Israel continues its heavy bombing of Gaza, and has cut off supplies of food, water and power to the enclave.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-67072901

[wjfox]

[erowind]

.

[erowind]

.

[erowind]

.

[wjfox]

[firestar464]

Israel could kill every Palestinian in cold blood and America would still fund them and liberals would still support the genocide as they are doing right now in this very thread.

No.

Foreign civilians are going to be treated like any other civilian in a warzone, war is war, why are their lives special compared to other civilians? Could it be because they are "white" or "western?" Woah is me when tears are shed for the Lusitania as justification for conquest. Women are no more important than men, there's nothing atrocious about capturing them as POWs when they are actively enlisted in an enemies army. It is a tragedy that children are in the crossfire of all this but I'll remind you that Israeli security forces bomb and shoot children regularly. This is the nature of a warzone.

Ofc there's nothing wrong with POWs, but killing civilians is bad, period. "But Israel" is not an effective argument as it's basically, just "yes...but" which is just "yes," which is wrong.

Also don't forget which comment you're replying to, which asked if war crimes are okay. Your inability to condemn them is not going to look good on you.

[wjfox]

[wjfox]

This doesn't sound very proportionate...

-----

Israel-Hamas war live: Gaza to be ‘razed to the ground’ as IDF mass at border and Palestinian power plant shuts off

6 minutes ago

Israeli defence officials have warned Gaza is going to be razed to the ground and reduced to “a city of tents”.

Israeli troops have already massed at the border with Gaza in what could presage a sweeping ground invasion of the strip.

Military officials warned they had “created an iron wall of tanks, helicopters and aircraft” around Gaza as they continued to carry out strikes on the region from the air late on Tuesday night.

At least 1055 people have been killed in Gaza by Israel‘s retaliatory airstrikes, according to the latest updates, while roughly 5,184 have been wounded. More than 1,200 Israelis have been killed and over 2,700 injured.

It comes as Palestinian officials warned that Gaza no longer has electricity after the only power plant fueling the strip was shut off.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 27613.html

[raklian]

This doesn't sound very proportionate...

Yeah, it sounds like Israel thinks doing this will rid themselves of Hamas forever. The problem is this is just going to create an entire generation of people who want revenge on Israel, keeping the vicious cycle of revenge burning fiercely.

[raklian]

Unconfirmed, but if true, it's going to change the dynamics of this conflict, perhaps inviting US involvement should Israel gets pushed to the brink. This is posing to become a challenge for the new U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

[Powers]

Unconfirmed, but if true, it's going to change the dynamics of this conflict, perhaps inviting US involvement should Israel gets pushed to the brink. This is posing to become a challenge for the new U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

They better speed up before their enemies pile up on them.

[wjfox]

CNN:

https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live ... index.html

Talks are underway to allow United States and Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip to exit the territory into Egypt ahead of any land invasion of the territory by Israeli forces, according to a senior Israeli official.

Under the proposal being discussed, all US citizens would be permitted to pass through the Rafah border crossing if they present their US passports, while the movement of other Palestinian civilians would be limited to 2,000 people a day, the official with knowledge of the negotiations told CNN on Wednesday.

Final approval of the arrangement would need to come from the Egyptians, who control the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt. The Israeli official said it was “in Israel’s interests” for as many Palestinians as possible to leave Gaza.

[raklian]

[erowind]

Ofc there's nothing wrong with POWs, but killing civilians is bad, period. "But Israel" is not an effective argument as it's basically, just "yes...but" which is just "yes," which is wrong.

Also don't forget which comment you're replying to, which asked if war crimes are okay. Your inability to condemn them is not going to look good on you.

Something that doesn't look good to me is seeing people care about certain civilians dyeing when there's a news cycle about it and people are encouraged to care. It is absurd to me that people hyperfocus on the people being genocided when they do something that is normal in any war because the media blasts out a few hundred stories over the course of a day but are generally oblivious and uncaring about ongoing constant daily warcrimes that Israel enacts the rest of the time.

There's a lack of acknowledgement that war is hell in this thread in general from people trying to equate the sides in this war. There's a desire to paint all combatants in this war as equal, they are not equal, there is a clear oppressor here. Highlighting the proportionally minor warcrimes of the oppressed in their resistance serves no ethical or constructive purpose while they are actively being genocided. The only reason the media talks about it is to manufacture consent for the ongoing genocide of Palestine.

To answer directly, even though someone in this thread will ignore my answer again I'm sure. No, war crimes are not okay, but they are part of all wars. I have said multiple times I don't think that Hamas magically conquering Israel if they were even a real threat capable of such a thing (they are not,) is a solution. But there is nothing constructive to be had in painting Hamas as barbaric, or as an enemy, absolutely nothing. The only way to fix the situation is to stop supporting Israel entirely and demand a complete reconstruction of the the state itself that would guarantee equal rights for all its citizens. We should be calling for sanctions not sending them more weapons.

These are not posted to claim that Hamas is as virtuous as the Allies, rather, to show that warcrimes are a universal condition in warfare. Some warcrimes are worse than others, genocide for example is much much worse than merely killing noncombatants that are unfortunate enough to be in the path of a military operation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66608891

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_wa ... rld_War_II

[Ken_J]

This doesn't sound very proportionate...

The problem is this is just going to create an entire generation of people who want revenge on Israel, keeping the vicious cycle of revenge burning fiercely.

on a guess I'd say that was the whole point. Israel was working things out with some of the bigger Islamic middle eastern nations. And was making good headway with the next big player in the arena over the last few months. The goal of Hamas is not and never has been to protect Palastine it's been to erradicate the 'jewish occcupation'. There are entire armies of people ready to be martyrs to the cause of getting rid of Israel and the 'jewish occupation'. it's a big anniversary of a previous war over this cause, it's a jewish holiday, and they started on a jewish sabbath.

They can sacrifice gaza and the people there to force the Arab world to pick whether they side with Islamic peoples, or will pick Israel over islamic people in this conflict. 2000, or 200,000 Palastinians weigh less in the war against Isreal than the surrounding Nations of the Arab world being given the excuse to oppose Israel. What is Gaza when losing it brings Iran, UAE, and other to the field to fight for Islam against Israel?

[Cyber_Rebel]

To answer directly, even though someone in this thread will ignore my answer again I'm sure. No, war crimes are not okay, but they are part of all wars. I have said multiple times I don't think that Hamas magically conquering Israel if they were even a real threat capable of such a thing (they are not,) is a solution. But there is nothing constructive to be had in painting Hamas as barbaric, or as an enemy, absolutely nothing. The only way to fix the situation is to stop supporting Israel entirely and demand a complete reconstruction of the the state itself that would guarantee equal rights for all its citizens. We should be calling for sanctions not sending them more weapons.

These are not posted to claim that Hamas is as virtuous as the Allies, rather, to show that warcrimes are a universal condition in warfare. Some warcrimes are worse than others, genocide for example is much much worse than merely killing noncombatants that are unfortunate enough to be in the path of a military operation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66608891

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_wa ... rld_War_II

Not ignoring you Ero, but rather than respond to your previous post, I'd rather ask you something else. Let's say for the sake of argument, that you are right, and that Israel truly wants the extermination of Palestinians from their region. Now, this obviously isn't the case for everyone, but perhaps those in power with grudges and ideologies which perpetuate this outcome.

If we consider this, then you'd have to then ask, how would they go about this in such a manner, as to not become seen as Nazis on the world stage? Well, turns out Hamas, who already has a history and ideology themselves as I've laid out, gives Israel the excuse they need to do exactly that, and even better, they can frame the narrative as one of self-defense considering the nature of Hamas's actions.

Now, this is something which Hamas, Israel, and many likely would come to the conclusion to before any such actions were even taken. Which circles back to my original reasoning, why even do such in the first place, if the only outcome to be had is bloodshed and the absolute destruction of the very thing you claim to be protecting? In the framing of this logic, what is accomplished by giving Israel with these intentions exactly what they wanted?

While your solution or ideal for a new state is basically what everyone who isn't an extremist should want or work towards, the religious, historical, and ideological rift of past generations would make this difficult to accomplish. You can't force that outcome, even if it is the correct one. A two-state solution isn't best either, but over time, and especially with newer generations who aren't as tied to the viewpoints of the past could slowly integrate and make peace. Things such as this need time and not the grudges perpetuated by past grievances.

Outside of this question, and one thing I will note from the other post, I truly do think that you and other leftist need to reconsider the idea that this won't be on the ballot next year. It absolutely will, as the Jewish community make up a significant voting bloc within this country. Depending on what happens next or how it turns out, there will be ramifications that will be felt come next year, you can't seriously believe that won't be the case. There's a reason the hard right is siding with Israel, and we both know sympathy has little to do with it. All it would take is a single major incident between now and then, and that's what will set the tone for the rest of the year.

I'm not saying one should support occupation here either, but to have tact when it comes to who one supports and how the response towards it should be. You will likely disagree with such a callous approach, but it could be what's necessary when electing representatives who actually do care about those who are oppressed.

[erowind]

I liked your post Cyber Rebel not because I agree with everything but because this conversation has actually managed to remain a conversation instead of turning into a fight unlike the past. We both have done better with that which is nice

I admit, my writing style is very abrasive though, it comes from reading very abrasive literature and having strong values on things.

Anyway, wanted to post this.

White House walks back Biden’s claim he saw children beheaded by Hamas

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/ ... estigation.

In summery. Israel lied about an alleged war crime with no evidence to the US government. The President then took that information and lied to the American people despite not being able to see any photos of said alleged crime because they do not exist and the crime in question did not happen. Then most major western news organizations ran the story without fact checking it and the disinformation spread throughout social media like wildfire and incited emotional reactions from the population.

This is the classic playbook that the US pulls when it wants to manufacture consent for a given agenda. It did the exact same thing during the build up to the Iraq war. Hamas has certainly committed some war crimes, namely bombing civilians, but unless you are seeing undoctored footage with your own eyes it's probably best to wait a while to let the dust settle. America and Israel specifically have a policy agenda here, their governments are not reputable sources of information on this topic.

[erowind]

I want to talk about how powerful ideological framing is in relation to an event with a lived example from my own life.

In my city about a month ago there was a shootout between the swat team and a man in a house. The local news (which is owned by the large American media conglomerates) reported that there was an "Active Shooter Situation" in the neighborhood and the police shut down 4 city blocks and forced everyone to stay in their homes while the "Police Confronted the Shooter." They did in fact shut down 4 city blocks and they did send the swat team in.

So, if you're a person who just believes everything you see reported from the news at face value and you have the standard ideological lens that most Americans have, you'd just think some wack job lost his mind and started shooting at people. That would be the end of it, this awful event happened, the "good guys," being the police, stepped in to save the community and deal with the threat. Right?

Except that's not what happened. There was no "active shooter." The man who was shooting at the police was doing so in self-defense. He was a man who had been living in a vacant forgotten home for over half a decade trying to establish squatters rights over the home in a largely abandoned neighborhood. I know this because he was active in the community and many people knew him well. He was no threat to anyone, in fact, he was improving a home that the property owners themselves had abandoned decades ago.

So what happened? A real estate development company bought the home without his knowledge or without the owner ever even attempting to offer a sale to him. Not that he could afford it, this is a very poor neighborhood, but that's besides the point. The company in question which has already gentrified part of the main street in the neighborhood now wants to do the same to the rest of the neighborhood. Normal working class people are a threat to this.

So what does the real estate company do? They serve him an eviction notice. He says "no this is my house and refuses to leave." So the police show up and escalate the situation with their legal but not ethical use of violence and attempt to force him to leave. He shoots at them when they try to steal his home from him and then they murdered him in cold blood and used the media to paint him as a psychotic mass shooter.

So what objectively happened? There was a shootout between a man and the police. But unless you're a heartless capitalist there should be at least a little bit of an ethical issue to be had here even if you don't agree with left-wing politics. There was no active shooter for one, that's an utter lie that was pushed to serve certain people's economic agenda, an agenda they were willing to kill over. If you are someone who values people over property the situation gets even more disturbing.

Who has a the legitimate use of force here? To me the man in the house was neither violent or doing anything wrong. I see an extrajudicial killing for someone's profit and a concerted effort to craft narrative to lie to the population in order to justify the killing. The house stopped being whoever's it was who owned it many decades ago when they let it rot for years on end without use. The man who had moved in not only had a legitimate right to the home but also a legitimate right to defend himself from armed men trying to steal it from him.

That's how powerful ideology and narrative around an event can be. There was a shootout, but depending on what information and perspective a person has the event itself can look completely different.

[weatheriscool]