Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
(Thread IKs: Main Paineframe)
 
  • Post
  • Reply
punishedkissinger
Sep 20, 2017

that does look like they are taking wounded hostages to be treated. doesn't really suggest that they would still be there more than a month later (which they apparently were not). makes even less sense that Israel would disable to hospital's electricity if they thought a wounded hostage was being treated there.

unless they just are actively trying to kill the hostages

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

FlamingLiberal
Jan 18, 2009

Would you like to play a game?



They want to have it every possible way.

-We want to rescue the hostages BUT we must also kill Hamas
-We don't bomb ambulances BUT Hamas was joyriding around in them for *reasons*
-Hamas' HQ is in a hospital in North Gaza, but OH NO it turns out that it's actually in South Gaza, J/K!

Neurolimal
Nov 3, 2012
Outside of the parking lot bomb (my theory is they wanted to spook people out of the hospital, and didn't realize people were sheltering in the lot), I think direct hospital bombings have been limited.

Not wrong about endangering lives though; they've killed a fair number of hostages through bombing, and even if they don't land on the hostages, the most recent casualty has been Arye Zalmanovich, who died of a heart attack during a bombing run.

Even on-foot, attempted rescues of hostages usually very likely to result in the hostages dying. Meanwhile, negotiated rescue has sat at around 94% success for decades.

Irony Be My Shield
Jul 29, 2012

From the river to the sea, Palestine will NEVER be free!
People are generally a lot less inclined to negotiate for hostage releases if you also perform a mass murder at the same time, and say that you will continue performing mass murders in the future. In this case saving the lives of 200 hostages is not seen as worth it if it allows Hamas to survive and kill another 1000+ people in future. The only way Israel is going to agree to a deal for hostages is if they think the concessions they're making are small enough that they can make them and still destroy Hamas before they perform another massacre (so no prisoner release, but possibly a temporary ceasefire).

Zulily Zoetrope
Jun 1, 2011

a smug little rat! 😏🐀


Muldoon
I mean if that was actually their main concern, they could just stop the ethnic cleansing and apartheid.

Destroying Hamas is not a realistic goal and does not justify the hostages you kill pursuing it.

I said come in!
Jun 22, 2004

Everything I know about hostage rescue, I learned from playing the original Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six.

But yeah, you stop Hamas by giving Palestinians their rights, and their own statehood that respects U.N. treaties and resolutions. You start treating them like actual people that are equals.

BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012


Lipstick Apathy

punishedkissinger posted:

unless they just are actively trying to kill the hostages
Well they did say "everyone."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo6bGp652XI

Hong XiuQuan
Feb 19, 2008

"Without justice for the Palestinians there will be no peace in the Middle East."
Just to note with regards to the video being touted as a smoking gun (obviously wounded people being brought to a hospital) - one of the other bits of ‘evidence’ touted by the gurning IDF Spokesman was the idea that Hamas had taped over cameras to avoid tracking. They had the wherewithal to do this but recordings were kept from October 7th showing nefarious hostage activity?

E: see also this thread on the tunnel at al-shifa’. Suggests that the tunnel *is* a Hamas tunnel but the entrance isn’t and the cut suggests it *may* be a forgery - https://x.com/muhammadshehad2/status/1726355718616514561?s=46&t=jHhhCI6vsgw2RiO1nHWeIA

Hong XiuQuan fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Nov 19, 2023

FirstnameLastname
Jul 10, 2022


got me 50 ounces out a bird in this bitch

Zulily Zoetrope posted:

Destroying Hamas is not a realistic goal and does not justify the hostages you kill pursuing it.

ya

Hamas is an acronym for "arakat al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah"
"Islamic Resistance Movement"
that is not the kind of thing states can stop with violence

even if they kill every single member at the same time others will pick up the flag as long as the conditions precipitating its formation still exist, and they do

at the most wiping all of them out would result in a name change to People's Islamic Resistance Jihad or whatever

I said come in! posted:

But yeah, you stop Hamas by giving Palestinians their rights, and their own statehood that respects U.N. treaties and resolutions. You start treating them like actual people that are equals.

FirstnameLastname fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Nov 19, 2023

FlamingLiberal
Jan 18, 2009

Would you like to play a game?



Killing tens of thousands of civilians will certainly make Hamas more sympathetic, even to the Palestinians who didn't agree with them before

That's on top of the absolute destruction of Northern Gaza, which is just going to create hundreds of thousands of refugees since they won't be able to go home whenever Israel's blood thirst is sated

Herstory Begins Now
Aug 5, 2003
SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

Irony Be My Shield posted:

People are generally a lot less inclined to negotiate for hostage releases if you also perform a mass murder at the same time, and say that you will continue performing mass murders in the future. In this case saving the lives of 200 hostages is not seen as worth it if it allows Hamas to survive and kill another 1000+ people in future. The only way Israel is going to agree to a deal for hostages is if they think the concessions they're making are small enough that they can make them and still destroy Hamas before they perform another massacre (so no prisoner release, but possibly a temporary ceasefire).

I get that you are stating their reasoning and not your own so I am not directing this at you but rather at the source of that reasoning: that is some utterly loving insane reasoning to justify killing hundreds of hostages (along with many more innocent people in the process) and it reminds me of Vietnam war era explanations of why villages had to be bombed with B-52s to save them

Google Jeb Bush
Mar 28, 2010


They even broke into my safe!

FlamingLiberal posted:

Killing tens of thousands of civilians will certainly make Hamas more sympathetic, even to the Palestinians who didn't agree with them before

That's on top of the absolute destruction of Northern Gaza, which is just going to create hundreds of thousands of refugees since they won't be able to go home whenever Israel's blood thirst is sated

many many pages ago there was a really fascinating 2021 article about Gazan rubble salvagers - tldr turns out you can do a lot with bombed out rubble, if that's all you loving have

the sheer scale here means it's going to take a while if ever to recover though

obvs the solution is a massive multinational aid effort but well, Gaza wasn't getting enough on a good year (not that that one desalination plant isn't super rad)

cat botherer
Jan 6, 2022

I am interested in most phases of data processing.

Google Jeb Bush posted:

obvs the solution is a massive multinational aid effort but well, Gaza wasn't getting enough on a good year (not that that one desalination plant isn't super rad)
Considering that Israel has been impeding UN aid efforts, I don't think such help is forthcoming.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/11/1143747

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Alchenar posted:

I have one: https://www.lloydslist.com/LL114731...0its%20website.

Can't get better than Lloyd's for shipping news.

e: article also reveals that this is the 3rd time Ray Shipping have been hit in the last three years, they're clearly Iran's punching bag of choice when they want to poke Israel.

Thank you for the source! Definitely seems to push back against Israeli's claim of it being British owned. Although I fear that taking additional hostages from non-Israeli countries will still needlessly escalate things...

Irony Be My Shield
Jul 29, 2012

From the river to the sea, Palestine will NEVER be free!
The ship was partially Israeli owned but it was rented to a Japanese company and making a trip from Turkey to India under the Bahamas flag, with an entirely non-Israeli crew. I think this will do a lot more to get other countries pissed off than to put pressure on Israel.

Hong XiuQuan posted:

Just to note with regards to the video being touted as a smoking gun (obviously wounded people being brought to a hospital) - one of the other bits of ‘evidence’ touted by the gurning IDF Spokesman was the idea that Hamas had taped over cameras to avoid tracking. They had the wherewithal to do this but recordings were kept from October 7th showing nefarious hostage activity?

E: see also this thread on the tunnel at al-shifa’. Suggests that the tunnel *is* a Hamas tunnel but the entrance isn’t and the cut suggests it *may* be a forgery - https://x.com/muhammadshehad2/status/1726355718616514561?s=46&t=jHhhCI6vsgw2RiO1nHWeIA
The video in that Tweet is cut, but the uncut version was also posted up-thread (the 3 and a half minute video in the second Tweet here). The video isn't perfect but it's not obviously cut.
https://twitter.com/manniefabian/status/1726286232408248687
I can believe the initial shaft was dug by an Israeli architect (explaining why it's more advanced than your average Hamas entrance), but if this video is accurate it looks like Hamas later connected their tunnel system to it.

Irony Be My Shield fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Nov 19, 2023

KillHour
Oct 28, 2007


Hong XiuQuan posted:

Just to note with regards to the video being touted as a smoking gun (obviously wounded people being brought to a hospital) - one of the other bits of ‘evidence’ touted by the gurning IDF Spokesman was the idea that Hamas had taped over cameras to avoid tracking. They had the wherewithal to do this but recordings were kept from October 7th showing nefarious hostage activity?

E: see also this thread on the tunnel at al-shifa’. Suggests that the tunnel *is* a Hamas tunnel but the entrance isn’t and the cut suggests it *may* be a forgery - https://x.com/muhammadshehad2/status/1726355718616514561?s=46&t=jHhhCI6vsgw2RiO1nHWeIA

That is literally just two different videos with a jump cut.

Edit: oh there's an uncut video apparently

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

I'M SCARED OF SKELETONS!!!

Irony Be My Shield posted:

People are generally a lot less inclined to negotiate for hostage releases if you also perform a mass murder at the same time, and say that you will continue performing mass murders in the future. In this case saving the lives of 200 hostages is not seen as worth it if it allows Hamas to survive and kill another 1000+ people in future. The only way Israel is going to agree to a deal for hostages is if they think the concessions they're making are small enough that they can make them and still destroy Hamas before they perform another massacre (so no prisoner release, but possibly a temporary ceasefire).

The flaw in this reasoning is that Israel possesses overwhelming military superiority over Hamas, and thus no amount of dealmaking can stop them from rolling over Hamas the moment the hostages are handed over.

Rather, I think the issue of the hostages is one where it's not correct to speak of "Israel" as a singular entity with a singular, unified set of goals. Instead, it's better to look into the perspectives of the individual actors and entities at play in Israeli decision-making.

Netanyahu's refusal to negotiate for hostages is actually somewhat unpopular among the Israeli population. According to the Israeli Democracy Institute, 54% of Israeli Jews think the government should be negotiating for the release of the hostages right now, while 39% think it shouldn't be. Moreover, Netanyahu's getting blasted by the media for his callous attitude toward the hostages' families.

Why the government's refusal to negotiate, then? I'm very strongly convinced that the motivation is ultimately political. Netanyahu has already taken a substantial political hit due to the events of Oct 7th. More importantly, he's largely seen as responsible for allowing the hostages to be taken in the first place. As such, he's unlikely to be able to claim the hostages' return as a large political accomplishment, especially since he'll also take the political blame for whatever concessions he's forced to make in order to get the hostages back. On the other hand, if he can somehow destroy Hamas once and for all (something the Israeli government has been trying to do for decades), that sort of historic political accomplishment might be enough that the electorate would be willing to forgive and forget the deaths of the hostages.

On top of that, Netanyahu's far-right coalition partners, some of which are openly genocidal, fully intend to blast him for showing even the slightest hint of mercy toward Palestinians. And that's something that also has an eager audience among the electorate. According to the Tel Aviv University Peace Index, 57% of Israeli Jews think the IDF is using too little firepower against Gaza. Which of course leads to the other major political issue here: while the Israeli populace supports the idea of negotiating for the hostages' release, it's not really clear that they're actually willing to accept Israeli concessions to Hamas in exchange for the hostages' release...but it's likely that if they find the conditions unacceptable, they'll blame Netanyahu for being a bad negotiator and for creating a situation where Israel is forced to negotiate in the first place. Once again, it's a political landmine that seems safer not to trigger, even when the alternative is dousing himself in the hostages' blood and pointing the finger at Hamas.

Shaocaholica
Oct 29, 2002

Fig. 5E

I said come in! posted:

But yeah, you stop Hamas by giving Palestinians their rights, and their own statehood that respects U.N. treaties and resolutions. You start treating them like actual people that are equals.

I feel like it’s been a bit late for that. Why would Hamas give up power under any positive change in conditions?

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

I said come in! posted:

But yeah, you stop Hamas by giving Palestinians their rights, and their own statehood that respects U.N. treaties and resolutions. You start treating them like actual people that are equals.

Huh? Where have you seen that Hamas would stop if this occurred? Their General Principles & Policies document explicitly states that Israel does not have the right to exist:

quote:

18. The following are considered null and void: the Balfour Declaration, the British Mandate Document, the UN Palestine Partition Resolution, and whatever resolutions and measures that derive from them or are similar to them. The establishment of “Israel” is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and goes against their will and the will of the Ummah; it is also in violation of human rights that are guaranteed by international conventions, foremost among them is the right to self-determination.

19. There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. Whatever has befallen the land of Palestine in terms of occupation, settlement building, Judaization or changes to its features or falsification of facts is illegitimate. Rights never lapse.

Elden Lord Godfrey
Mar 4, 2022
Sinn Fein is a huge party in both the Republic and Northern Ireland. Likud grew out of the Zionist terrorist organizations that blew up the King David Hotel in Mandatory Palestine. The PLO got coopted into becoming the PA.

Hamas would be in good company.

FlamingLiberal
Jan 18, 2009

Would you like to play a game?



also Hamas would not exist if there wasn't an active occupation.

I said come in!
Jun 22, 2004

Kalit posted:

Huh? Where have you seen that Hamas would stop if this occurred? Their General Principles & Policies document explicitly states that Israel does not have the right to exist:

But how many Palestinians would want to join in their violence if Israel stopped so brutally oppressing them?

Viller
Jun 2, 2005

Proud opponent of Israeli terror and Jewish fascism!

I said come in! posted:

Yep, that and I would like more evidence that we know for sure those are hostages, and hamas militants in the footage. There is nothing identifying them. The footage is clearly dated and time stamped, so that helps, but also Gaza is a pretty dangerous place on one of its "normal" not being bombed by Israel days. Violence was very common. We are positive these are not just normal Gaza citizens? Which I mean, the 2nd bit of footage of the front entrance, was pretty damning, that person looked like he didn't want to be there.

so they release footage of a tunnel and footage of the hamas roaches inside the hospital but you can somehow just handwave it away to fit your dumb narrative.

Readily will believe Hamas bullshit in any case though, the merchants of truth terrorist organisation...

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Lovely Joe Stalin
Jun 12, 2007

Our Lovely Wang

Viller posted:

so they release footage of a tunnel and footage of the hamas roaches inside the hospital but you can somehow just handwave it away to fit your dumb narrative.

Readily will believe Hamas bullshit in any case though, the merchants of truth terrorist organisation...

Sorry, what's your point?

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

I said come in! posted:

But how many Palestinians would want to join in their violence if Israel stopped so brutally oppressing them?

I don't know, you're the one making the claim. I'm only pointing out that Hamas itself would want to continue even if Israel immediately agreed to a [reasonable] two-state solution.

Neurolimal
Nov 3, 2012

Viller posted:

so they release footage of a tunnel

Currently we've a tunnel outside the hospital. Onus is on the IDF to prove that it's a part of a tunnel network under the hospital, and that it's not a maintenance tunnel as part of the original design of the hospital.

quote:

and footage of the hamas roaches inside the hospital but you can somehow just handwave it away to fit your dumb narrative.

1. Tending to injured combatants does not take away a hospital's protection, let alone hostages
2. Nobody has ever denied that Hamas operatives have been in the hospital (in fact they've held interviews there with the press), the accusation is that they've been using the hospital as a base, and that has yet to be proven.

Herstory Begins Now
Aug 5, 2003
SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

Viller posted:

so they release footage of a tunnel and footage of the hamas roaches inside the hospital but you can somehow just handwave it away to fit your dumb narrative.

Readily will believe Hamas bullshit in any case though, the merchants of truth terrorist organisation...

you should try less racism

Darth Walrus
Feb 13, 2012

Viller posted:

so they release footage of a tunnel and footage of the hamas roaches inside the hospital but you can somehow just handwave it away to fit your dumb narrative.

Readily will believe Hamas bullshit in any case though, the merchants of truth terrorist organisation...

This is a whole lot of righteous fury based on the premise that a military with a lengthy and substantial track record of lying like gently caress is showing the world the complete, unvarnished truth for once. Seriously, have you really not learned to cool your jets and wait for external verification yet?

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

I'M SCARED OF SKELETONS!!!

Kalit posted:

Huh? Where have you seen that Hamas would stop if this occurred? Their General Principles & Policies document explicitly states that Israel does not have the right to exist:

Huh? That doesn't say "Israel does not have the right to exist", it says "The establishment of 'Israel' is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and goes against their will and the will of the Ummah; it is also in violation of human rights that are guaranteed by international conventions, foremost among them is the right to self-determination.".

Even if it did say "Israel does not have the right to exist", that wouldn't be the same as committing to endless violence against Israel with no chance of peace or peaceful coexistence. After all, I believe South Korea never recognized any "right to exist" for North Korea, but was able to maintain mostly-peaceful coexistence with them for a number of decades, which have led to warming relations between the two - in spite of the fact that the two countries officially continue to deny any "right to exist" for each other.

And if the refusal to acknowledge a right to exist means that a party should be regarded as inexorably hostile and absolutely committed to the other side's destruction, then what about the Likud party platform of 1999 (which is, as far as I can tell, the last time they bothered to put out an English-language platform)?

quote:

Settlements

The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.

...

Self-Rule

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel's existence, security and national needs.

Jerusalem

Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem, including the plan to divide the city presented to the Knesset by the Arab factions and supported by many members of Labor and Meretz. The government firmly rejects attempts of various sources in the world, some anti-Semitic in origin, to question Jerusalem's status as Israel's capital, and the 3,000-year-old special connection between the Jewish people and its capital. To ensure this, the government will continue the firm policies it has adopted until now:

No diplomatic activity will be permitted at Orient House. The government stopped the stream of visits by heads of state and ministers at Orient House, begun under the left-wing government.

The presence of the Israeli police in eastern Jerusalem will be increased. This in addition to the new police posts and reinforcements in the neighborhoods.

The Likud government will act with vigor to continue Jewish habitation and strengthen Israeli sovereignty in the eastern parts of the city, while emphasizing improvements in the welfare and security of the Arab residents. Despite protests from the left, the Likud government consistently approved the continuation of Jewish living within the Old City and in 'City of David'.

The Jordan River as a Permanent Border

The Jordan Valley and the territories that dominate it shall be under Israeli sovereignty. The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel. The Kingdom of Jordan is a desirable partner in the permanent status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians in matters that will be agreed upon.

For those who are unaware, the Jordan River is the current eastern border of the West Bank (which is named such because it's west of the Jordan River). In other words, this is a complete rejection of a Palestinian state in the West Bank or Jerusalem, and a clear expression of intent to keep the entire West Bank as part of Israel, under which some Palestinian communities might be allowed some sort of non-independent "self-rule". Certainly doesn't seem to be any suggestion here that an independent Palestine has any "right to exist".

Jyppe
Jun 13, 2007
For the Fireman!

Viller posted:


Readily will believe Hamas bullshit in any case though, the merchants of truth terrorist organisation...

How can you be surprised about this when that guy admits he doesn't see anything wrong with supporting Hamas.

I said come in! posted:

Honestly I don't think there is anything wrong with supporting hamas. I don't full on agree with their methods, but they are freedom fighters, not a terrorist group. They are doing what they need to in order to secure freedom for the Palestinians and there is absolutely no choices they can make that is correct. But also no matter what they do, no one forced Israel to collectively punish the Palestinians, something Israel was already doing regardless of Hamas actions. They are also most likely not the barbaric butchers on October 7th that we are being led to believe. Many of the deaths on October 7 were actually caused by the IDF but we will likely never have an exact count https://mondoweiss.net/2023/10/a-gr...campaign=buffer

I mean Israels response would be to kill both the hostage takers and the hostages. Neither is good though.

Celexi
Nov 25, 2006

Slava Ukraini!
That is the tunnel they built back in 1983 from the own diagram of their video exploration it arches back into building 2 of the hospital.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_Hospital_siege

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

man buys avatar
to save dead web forum
what a dumb moron

Main Paineframe posted:

And if the refusal to acknowledge a right to exist means that a party should be regarded as inexorably hostile and absolutely committed to the other side's destruction, then what about the Likud party platform of 1999 (which is, as far as I can tell, the last time they bothered to put out an English-language platform)?

The crimes of the last month make it obvious that Likud is absolutely committed to the other side's destruction. We've been seeing and discussing it live, every day, so I'm not sure what your point is here.

"Inexorably" might not be a quality of political parties. The American Democratic and Republican parties have no resemblance whatsoever to their original or earlier formations, Hamas used to be officially anti-Jewish and now it's not, I think given enough time and incentive both Hamas and Likud could become compatible with a two-state solution.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Nov 20, 2023

Irony Be My Shield
Jul 29, 2012

From the river to the sea, Palestine will NEVER be free!
Hamas taking hostages in for treatment (although I do strongly question whether the guy being forcibly dragged in at a running pace was there for treatment) would not in and of itself take away a hospital's protection. But it's obviously very ethically dubious for a hospital to treat a hostage and then release them back into captivity. The fact that they did this implies that Hamas at the very least is prepared to threaten the hospital into assisting them.

Celexi posted:

That is the tunnel they built back in 1983 from the own diagram of their video exploration it arches back into building 2 of the hospital.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_Hospital_siege
I am extremely dubious about the claim that an Israeli architect constructed an irregular and unprofessional looking tunnel that's exactly wide and tall enough to accommodate a single person. Hospitals absolutely do often have tunnels but they are generally wider, squarer, lit and have utility other than allowing someone to sneak from one position to another underground (eg you might see pipes or wires, or storerooms, and they'll probably be wide enough to move equipment around in). I wouldn't go as far as the Tweet above which says that the video "definitely shows a Hamas tunnel" but that seems like the most likely explanation by far.

GoodluckJonathan
Oct 31, 2003

I said come in! posted:

But how many Palestinians would want to join in their violence if Israel stopped so brutally oppressing them?

If only the Israelis could find the exact level of brutality with which to oppress the Palestinians so that they would slowly get wiped out, but not be moved to resist violently. Alas!

Cease to Hope
Dec 12, 2011

Irony Be My Shield posted:

Has there been any evidence suggesting the IDF lied about their own casualties in previous wars? It seems like an extremely difficult thing to hush up given that all these soldiers will have families who will realize very quickly if they lose contact with them. It's way more plausible to me that Hamas is exaggerating their accomplishments and/or providing videos that are not actually from the current conflict in order to make their campaign seem more successful than it is.

"shaping" casualties, to conceal defeats or spread misinformation to enemies observing the press, is fairly common in all wars but it's easier in foreign ones. proving it requires deep investigation and usually the discrepancies are minor and indistinguishable from honest error or FOW, unless something more noteworthy is being covered up at the same time.

Main Paineframe posted:

If you can't verify it directly, why not approach from a different angle? Namely, if the director of Mount Herzl Cemetery is openly telling Jewish-Israeli reporters about all these burials in Hebrew-language interviews that are being broadcast publicly on Israeli TV, why would you only be able to find Arab sources talking about it?

At first glance, it doesn't pass the smell test. It's hard to claim there's a coverup when your evidence is a recorded TV broadcast.

There is in fact still a backlog of Oct 7th casualties they're working through. The considerable carnage of the day made body identification very difficult, and in the first place, Israel doesn't have the capacity to quickly process more than a thousand bodies.

accusing israel of just covering it up in plain sight is sensical, especially if you believe any story in hebrew that adds up the bodies buried and compares it to the casualty figures would simply get spiked. i do think it's more likely a case of slowly working through the october backlog, though.

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Main Paineframe posted:

Huh? That doesn't say "Israel does not have the right to exist", it says "The establishment of 'Israel' is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and goes against their will and the will of the Ummah; it is also in violation of human rights that are guaranteed by international conventions, foremost among them is the right to self-determination.".

Even if it did say "Israel does not have the right to exist", that wouldn't be the same as committing to endless violence against Israel with no chance of peace or peaceful coexistence. After all, I believe South Korea never recognized any "right to exist" for North Korea, but was able to maintain mostly-peaceful coexistence with them for a number of decades, which have led to warming relations between the two - in spite of the fact that the two countries officially continue to deny any "right to exist" for each other.

And if the refusal to acknowledge a right to exist means that a party should be regarded as inexorably hostile and absolutely committed to the other side's destruction, then what about the Likud party platform of 1999 (which is, as far as I can tell, the last time they bothered to put out an English-language platform)?

For those who are unaware, the Jordan River is the current eastern border of the West Bank (which is named such because it's west of the Jordan River). In other words, this is a complete rejection of a Palestinian state in the West Bank or Jerusalem, and a clear expression of intent to keep the entire West Bank as part of Israel, under which some Palestinian communities might be allowed some sort of non-independent "self-rule". Certainly doesn't seem to be any suggestion here that an independent Palestine has any "right to exist".

Saying the creation of a nation is illegal and then immediately following it up with "There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of [nation]" I think is a clear indication that they think Israel should not exist. If you disagree because the exact verbiage doesn't match, then you can have your opinion on that.

As far as a peaceful co-existance, of course that is theoretically possible. However, I was responding to a poster who stated

I said come in! posted:

But yeah, you stop Hamas by giving Palestinians their rights, and their own statehood that respects U.N. treaties and resolutions. You start treating them like actual people that are equals.

This sounds like a fact. I don't understand how the poster came to this fact. Their follow up question of

I said come in! posted:

But how many Palestinians would want to join in their violence if Israel stopped so brutally oppressing them?
did not provide any further clarification.

As far as your comment about the Likud party platform, they do not support a two state solution either. If it was forced upon them, I think they would still try to keep encroaching on Palestine. So I'm unsure why you're bringing that up as a counter-argument about why Hamas would be stopped.

Kalit fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Nov 20, 2023

Neurolimal
Nov 3, 2012
Hamas' offer ever since they were elected has been a ten-year truce in exchange for a return to 1967 borders, and they've historically been better at abiding by ceasefires than Israel. You could argue that they would immediately go back to fighting afterwards if you'd like, but my personal bet is that, after 10 years of development without bombs and without checkpoints, the appetite for war in Palestine would be low.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

I'M SCARED OF SKELETONS!!!

Kalit posted:

Saying the creation of a nation is illegal and then immediately following it up with "There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of [nation]" I think is a clear indication that they think Israel should not exist. If you disagree because the exact verbiage doesn't match, then you can have your opinion on that.

As far as a peaceful co-existance, of course that is theoretically possible. However, I was responding to a poster who stated

This sounds like a fact. I don't understand how the poster came to this fact. Their follow up question of

did not provide any further clarification.

As far as your comment about the Likud party platform, they do not support a two state solution either. If it was forced upon them, I think they would still try to keep encroaching on Palestine. So I'm unsure why you're bringing that up as a counter-argument about why Hamas would be stopped.

The reason I'm pushing back here is because your verbiage is all over the place. You're treating "The establishment of 'Israel' is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people" as if it's an exact synonym for "Israel does not have the right to exist", and then in turn treating that as an exact synonym for "they think Israel should not exist", which in turn you're treating as an indication that Hamas will never stop engaging in violent terrorism against Israel and is impossible to peacefully coexist with. You're making some considerable leaps by simply taking a phrase, replacing it with something similar but not quite the same, and then repeating that over and over again.

If one party not recognizing the other side's right to exist is an existential threat that justifies the destruction of that party, then surely the destruction of Likud is just as necessary as the destruction of Hamas. Though I realize that's not an argument you were making right now.

As for the rest, Hamas' strategy since the mid-00s has been pretty clearly dedicated to compelling negotiation through violence, with the goal of achieving Israeli concessions sufficient to establish a Palestinian state in peaceful coexistence with Israel. The lesson of the 90s and the 00s was that while peaceful negotiation alone couldn't convince Israel to make concessions, rendering the occupation difficult and annoying via insurgency tactics could in fact drive them to reluctantly make concessions beyond what they were willing to offer in purely nonviolent negotiations. Israeli concessions leading to a Palestinian state would almost certainly quell most of Hamas' violence, and more importantly, would substantially reduce the number of people willing to lay down their lives for symbolic strikes at Israel.

Main Paineframe fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Nov 20, 2023

Shaocaholica
Oct 29, 2002

Fig. 5E
Were 1967 borders ever on the table at any point in the history of the I/P conflict?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006
Since my original point seems to have gotten lost, let me clarify: I'm pushing back against I said come in!'s insinuation of a two state solution would stop Hamas. Sorry if it sounded like I was saying that it would be impossible.

Kalit fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Nov 20, 2023

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply