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
Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

FlamingLiberal posted:

It's been a year and a week since the last Israeli election. Which was the 4th in two years. Dare we do a 5th in 3 years?

TBH, I half feel like this was the long game by Netanyahu. Was it a coincidence that he was the first one in charge in this compromise government?? :tinfoil:

E: VVVV :ohno: This is why I shouldn't try to make lovely jokes about places I don't pay enough attention to. But thank you for the brief explanation!

Kalit fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Apr 7, 2022

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

fool of sound posted:

This attack is directly a product of every less extreme option being systematically closed to the Palestinians. They can't hope to negotiate; Israel has historically negotiated with them in bath faith when it deigns to do so at all. They can't hope for integration; even the Israeli left is so anti-Arab that they would rather fail to form a government than negotiate with the Arab List. They can't hope for foreign intervention, it's either solidly on Israel's side or willing to abandon Palestine for better relations with the former. They can't hope to win a military confrontation; they have what arms can be smuggled in, Israel is outfitted by the USA. They can't even hope to make a functional homeland for themselves; Israel functionally controls their borders and infrastructure, and progressively steals what land it wants anyway. There are no options available to them except terrorist attacks or submitting to ever worsening oppression. Saying that "Hamas shouldn't be doing this" implies that other options actually exist. They don't.

Palestine and Israel do not operate on level ethical ground. Israel is an actual functional nation state, Palestine is a gulag that Israel and the international community sometimes finds convenient to pretend is one. The power dynamic and relative options means that their acts cannot carry the same ethical weight.

How are terrorist attacks on civilians in Israel more of a viable option? It's also doomed to have any positive outcome for Palestinians, probably to the same degree (or worse) when compared to everything else you listed.

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

The E.U. is cancelling its plan to end all aid to the Palestinians after complaints from the United States, Luxembourg, Spain, Ireland, and Denmark that it would just hurt opposition to Hamas instead of Hamas.

Still pretty wild that they were actually thinking about just pulling 100% of the plug, including aid to Fatah and the West Bank, for about 4 hours.

TBH, I'm impressed that the US pushed back against it (low bar, I know). Regardless, glad to hear the E.U. reversed this plan.

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006
Looks like Hezbollah has gotten directly involved: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-military-says-its-troops-killed-gunmen-who-infiltrated-lebanon-2023-10-09/

quote:

Lebanese armed group Hezbollah fired a salvo of rockets onto northern Israel on Monday in response to at least four of its members being killed in Israeli shelling on Lebanon, two security sources told Reuters.

The exchange of fire marks a significant expansion of the conflict between Israel and Palestinian militants to the Israeli-Lebanese border further north. Iran-backed Hezbollah and Israel fought a brutal month-long war in 2006.

Hezbollah in a statement on Monday said it had fired rockets and mortars on two Israeli military posts in the Galilee. The Israeli military said it identified a number of "launches" from Lebanon into Israel, without any injuries. It said it was responding with artillery fire onto Lebanon.

Hezbollah said in consecutive online statements that at least four of its members had been killed in Israel's "aggression" on southern Lebanon on Monday afternoon.

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Majorian posted:

I haven't seen much evidence to suggest that the rapes and murders of civilians were centrally-planned. It seems more likely to me, as Neurolimal suggested, that they were the result of a lack of discipline among the Hamas fighters. Hopefully those fighters will be brought to justice by the appropriate authorities, and Hamas, if it survives as an organization, will institute more rigid discipline among its fighting units.

What evidence have you seen that suggest that the murders of civilians weren’t centrally planned? TBH, this sounds like wishful thinking to me, since most of the Israeli deaths have been civilians

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

A big flaming stink posted:

From what i've seen from Hamas's statements, they do not consider settlers to be civilians, but rather fair targets. I think a likely candidate for a central strategy is to make Israel's pushing of settlements untenable due to fear for their own safety

As others insinuated, based on the location, it seems unlikely that many of the those murdered were settlers

Also, as an FYI, using Hamas’s statements probably isn’t the best source of truth for how many civilians they have murdered. According to Basem Naim, they haven’t killed any civilians at all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egipqa0ZhUk

Kalit fucked around with this message at 09:58 on Oct 10, 2023

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Jimlit posted:

Have the rapes even been confirmed or is this just more racist bullshit?

Why are you acting like the claim of rapes occurring was Kolby’s?

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006
Can Twitter/X embeds just be banned ITT? The amount of people taking non-legitimate sources as truth is ridiculous

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Adenoid Dan posted:

It's pretty gross how with Israel doing a genocidal bombing campaign people are still focusing on Hamas. Israel is getting a green light from all its partners to slaughter everyone in their concentration camp, how is that not the topic?

Are we reading different threads? There’s lots of posting about both bombing campaigns in the past couple days

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Ciprian Maricon posted:

The president of the United States just told the country that the reason why an American aircraft carrier was en route to go blow the people of Gaza to pieces was because Hamas was beheading kids, I think its extremely relevant to discuss if the story is sensationalized and uncorroborated.

TBH, if this is true (I hadn’t had a chance to listen to his speech), I’d easily believe Biden over goons

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

celadon posted:

Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein%27s_alleged_shredder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony

At some point, once multiple examples of the barbarism of the arabic horde fall short of what would be considered technically true, wouldn't the null hypothesis be that the West is lying? And I'm not sure of any goon statements that have been used to justify foreign wars, making them the far more reliable source.

Notice how I didn’t say “I trust Biden unconditionally”? And I even preempted it by saying “if this is true”. Which, based on tagesschau’s link, seems to be not true.

So, until proven otherwise, I’m unsurprised to see another embellishment/misquote/lie by a goon

tagesschau posted:

It isn't true. Biden mentioned "stomach-turning reports of ... babies being killed." He didn't say they were beheaded, nor did he state that the carrier group was going to attack Gaza.

Thank you for providing the context

Kalit fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Oct 11, 2023

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

fool of sound posted:

This is the base state of being for the entire Israeli right. There is no peaceful set of actions that the Palestinians could take that would make Israel stop imprisoning and slowly genociding them, and Israel will always take any excuse to upgrade their passive genocide into active.

And, as I had replied to your prior claim of "no options available to them except terrorist attacks", trying to attack Israel is still not a more viable option when compared to others you had listed. It will do nothing to help out Palestinian rights.

Hell, considering most other countries' alliances, it will probably worsen Palestinian rights and be used as an excuse to accelerate Israel's genocide. I just hope that the leadership of other countries, including mine of the US, will realize that Hamas does not speak for the majority of Palestinians.

Kalit fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Oct 11, 2023

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

celadon posted:

Israel's genocide is going to succeed, there should be no doubt about that. They're implementing a full scale blockade on two million people, theres no way Gaza can support its population internally, nor is there any indication that other entities will step up to the plate and provide sufficient aid. It is also unclear under what conditions an entity like the United States would step in and break Israel's blockade. Israel is going to do just fine in its objectives, Gaza will be cleared out.

I stated accelerate it for Palestinians, not Gaza. I hope you understand the nuance in that. If not, please educate yourself further: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_territories

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

fool of sound posted:

Do you think that the ANC in South Africa shouldn't have used car bombs? Shouldn't have attacked embassies and government workers, or whites who lived near and used black townships for cheap labor? Do you think that, without those attacks, the white lead government would have relented on their own, or that other nations would have been sickened enough by their death squads to begin breaking economic ties with them? Do you earnestly believe that there is a peaceful path to liberation for Palestine, given Israel's unwillingness to negotiate with them in good faith and near constant interference in their elections?

When you have a world where most countries are not an ally of a populace, mass murdering random citizens of an ally of most countries that have a decent influence on global politics usually does not start creating a positive view of said populace. If you have specific facts that disproves this, I would love to see them.

TBH, I don't want to have to go through your vague broadbrushed examples, analyze the effect they had, etc.

celadon posted:

I'm sorry, I only referred to Gaza in my post as my concerns at the moment are primarily of Israel's blockade of Gaza and the subsequent humanitarian disaster contained within. I understand that Israel controls other populations of Palestinians for which this current conflict will certainly be used as an educational device. I understand that the state of Palestinians under Israeli control is more complex than just what occurs inside the Gaza Strip, don't worry.

Glad to hear, thank you for the clarification

Kalit fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Oct 11, 2023

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

fool of sound posted:

To simplify a great deal of history, I’ll begin by saying that most of the ANC and related organization major attacks were focused on military, paramilitary, police, government, or industrial targets. In this context I think paramilitary and police forces shouldn’t count as civilian but nevertheless quite a lot of civilian government or industrial workers were killed, especially white civil or business administrators. Additionally, they “indiscriminately” killed quite a few whites, plus fellow black people who were seen as supporting the apartheid government.

The goals of these attacks were threefold: first, the render areas outside of white power centers ungovernable, in order to reduce their ability to disrupt black organization. Second, to deliberately accelerate widespread conflict in order to force the government into a choice between negotiation and an outright civil war. And third, to make the country dangerous and unstable in order to scare away international business and investors.

The strategy did eventually work: the government began secret negotiations with the ANC, though they took years to start bearing fruit, and only bore that fruit after five years of the particularly intense guerrilla action.

Sounds quite different than Hamas murdering a bunch of non-government/military related civilians. Why are you trying to use ANC as an analogy?

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

fool of sound posted:

Did you skip over the part where I said they also killed a lot of unrelated white people? More than 20k people died just from direct fighting, and a lot of them were not combatants. Parts of their strategy were a deliberate terror campaign, and was called as such by international media. I can't pretend to know what exactly Hamas is thinking, but I suspect their goals aren't that different than the ones I outlined.

Based on a casual google search, since you're not providing any sources, they actively killed 52 civilians in their attacks. Hamas killed a lot more in their recent attacks.

In addition, since you didn't say anything about public support, I'm trying to look up what it looked like (I was born in 1987, so I'm not super familiar with it). I see that during what seemed to be the height of your [presumably mostly non-civilian] 20k death claim, with 15k deaths occurring during mid 1980s-1990s, even the US was divided on foreign relations with South Africa based on the handling of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act. Which seems to be much different than the US current support of Israel/Hamas. I am assuming that other countries were also more supportive of the ANC than they currently are of Hamas.

If I stated anything inaccurately or you have further context, I'd love to read it. However, based on trying to look these things up myself, it still seems like ANC's tactics vs Hamas' tactics are very different when looking at it from a global, geopolitical lens.

Kalit fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Oct 11, 2023

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Neurolimal posted:

https://twitter.com/henrymance/status/1712811314299490353

Personally, this isn't the kind of messaging I would be putting out shortly before my country launches a ground invasion.

This person is lying, Herzog wasn't even insinuating that innocent civilians do not exist. Full context can be found at https://www.lontimes.com/israeli-president-defends-gaza-air-strikes-deaths-of-hamas-militants-we-are-fighting-terror/

quote:

Israeli President Isaac Herzog defended his country’s attack on Hamas during a fiery press conference on Thursday, saying Israel is “fighting terrorism” and that they will eliminate those who carried out the worst attack on Israel in its 75-year history. Will leave no stone unturned to do so.

“We are fighting terror,” Herzog said. “Humanity must decide: Are we promoting terror or are we fighting terror? We have seen the worst atrocities. We are witnessing the worst atrocities possible by an entire campaign of a movement that our neighbors There is great support.”

Herzog added: “I agree, there are many innocent Palestinians who don’t agree [ideology], But unfortunately, there are missiles fired at their homes, at us, at my children, at the entire nation of Israel. We have to defend ourselves. We have every right to do so. Now it is time that the whole world understands this, this is the tragedy of the use of terror. There is no mercy on terror.”

quote:

During the press conference, the Israeli President specified that his country was at war with Hamas and was not intentionally targeting civilians, but said that if terrorists use the sites to target Israel first then the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) will fire at civilian targets.

He also expressed frustration at those in Gaza who allowed Hamas to come to power and remain in power as it continued its hate campaign against Israel.

Herzog said, “The rhetoric about civilians not being aware and not involved is simply not true. They could have stood up, they could have fought against the evil regime that had taken over Gaza in a coup “

Kalit fucked around with this message at 13:46 on Oct 13, 2023

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Charliegrs posted:

So when does the 24hr period on Israels bullshit "warning" end?

Looks like they're already sending in ground troops: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/now-is-time-war-says-israels-military-chief-2023-10-12/

quote:

Israeli infantry made their first raids into the Gaza Strip on Friday since Hamas fighters rampaged through southern Israel, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said a campaign of retaliation had only just begun.

Israel has vowed to annihilate Hamas after its fighters burst out of Gaza a week ago and stormed through towns and villages, killing 1,300 Israelis, mainly civilians, and making off with scores of hostages.

quote:

Israeli military spokesperson Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari said troops backed by tanks had mounted raids to attack Palestinian rocket crews and seek information on the location of hostages, the first official account of ground troops in Gaza since the crisis began.

"We are striking our enemies with unprecedented might," Netanyahu said in a brief statement which, unusually, was televised after the Jewish Sabbath had begun. "I emphasise that this is only the beginning."

I was hoping that the UN would have been able to persuade them to change course with this decision :sigh:

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Darth Walrus posted:

https://x.com/brian_castner/status/1712921897975837016?s=46&t=ARI_L-v32Oind1-d9B3a3Q

Weapons investigator for Amnesty International describes how his team determined that Israel is using white phosphorous in Gaza.

Is there anyone here knowledgeable about military weapons that can explain this further to me? It looks like it’s a smoke projectile to hide their rockets, not concentrated white phosphorus that is being used to attack people.

And if Amnesty International is correct, what’s the chance of these particles reaching any humans? Do they burn up instantly in the sky or can they still reach the ground/humans?

Kalit fucked around with this message at 12:45 on Oct 14, 2023

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

CuddleCryptid posted:

I'm not sure what you mean by "smoke projectile to hide rockets", WP is used in "legitimate" applications for creating smoke screens for troop movements but they are firing them directly into cities, which means they are being used as incindiaries to burn out buildings.

I'm assuming they would be using them to hide rockets from radar systems? That's a wild guess on my part, so I could be 100% wrong, of course. Otherwise, I have no idea why they would be using them in tandem with their other rockets (as mentioned in that linked article):

quote:

The same attack can be seen from another angle in this video, where white phosphorus ammunition is seen being used in tandem with what seem to be standard high explosive artillery shells.

For anyone interested, I did some more poking around and found this link related to chemical properties of WP: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK224560/. These rockets were definitely within 300m of humans, I hope for them it was of an amount < 1 mg per cubic meter :sigh:

E:

B B posted:

Why would they need to hide rockets fired in Gaza? Are they worried that HAMAS has acquired their own Iron Dome? It's not like the the Palestinians can actually do anything about a rocket once the IDF soldier pushes the button to murder innocent civilians. One use that the IDF may find for the white phosphorus is causing an immensely painful death for any innocent civilians who are trapped in the rubble of recently collapsed buildings:

There's a very popular phrase that I think explains the rationale behind the use of white phosphorus pretty succinctly: the cruelty is the point.

I hope you understand that these smoke projectiles are way different than the WP weapons used in Vietnam....

Kalit fucked around with this message at 13:36 on Oct 14, 2023

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

FlamingLiberal posted:

The ‘bright’ side of the House being dysfunctional is that they aren’t passing bills to give Israel additional military aid right now

I doubt Israel needs any additional US military aid to wipe Gaza off the map, even if Hezbollah gets fully involved

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

…because we’re allies? I’m confused on what point you’re trying to make.

Do you think that Israel wouldn’t have the military strength to wipe out Gaza without any help?

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

World Famous W posted:

our ally sucks and we should stop giving them more arms

I agree. Unfortunately, I do not have the power to make that happen

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

TGLT posted:

I'm sure the dead will be comforted to know the atrocities will be seen as premeditated or condemned by nations that will however refuse to sanction or in any meaningful, material sense punish Israel or even take real action to prevent the next set of atrocities.

German police broke up pro-Palestinian rallies, France has just banned them outright, and the UK government has talked about bringing in police, but hey some media organizations occasionally mention how bad things are and how it's really tragic that Hamas made the Israeli government do all this - now here's some poo poo the IDF said no we will not verify if it's true.

I'm a little shocked this hadn't been reversed yet (if they're even enforcing it). Especially since France is pushing for their aid to get through to Gaza: https://news.yahoo.com/egypt-france-foreign-ministers-urge-165716226.html?guccounter=1

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

TGLT posted:

It is strategically very advantageous for Israel to say that Hamas has munitions and soldiers hidden everywhere all over Gaza so that they get a free out when they murder civilians. Frankly I'd be shocked if Israel didn't just invent Hamas as an excuse to murder civilians.

"Well I feel like it could be true" isn't a loving basis for believing something. If it were true why is it third party investigators frequently find no evidence to support those claims? Why doesn't Israel provide this evidence it supposedly has? At what point do you accept that maybe the IDF is just loving lying? It may be true in some instances but in all instances it should be incumbent on Israel to actually prove it. Like that doesn't even mean it's justified but it is at a minimum the first step that needs to be taken that never seems to be.

Do you have sources/examples for this? For a counter-example, UNRWA got kicked out of an area when they found rockets in a vacant school, which was also next to two other [populated] schools: https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns-placement-rockets-second-time-one-its-schools

While IDF lies, they definitely aren't lying about Hamas' strategy of weapons/etc in civilian infrastructure.

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

CuddleCryptid posted:

Biden

https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1714426083678851116?t=spUH0b2AT6dUXNG_TERlmw&s=19

Like with the WHO, the fact he's talking about intentional targeting implies the US is on the side of deliberate strike.

Huh? What words/phrase does he use to suggest that it was intentional?

If anything, to me it seems like he was going out of his way to ensure there's no intentionality behind it (presumably to not offend Israel)

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Neurolimal posted:

My personal hunch is that, if whatever Israel gave the US made them confident that Israel didn't do it (or at the very least could sufficiently muddy the waters) US statements would be more along the lines of condemning Hamas & reiterating support for Israel. It's what's not in the statement that makes me think Israel absolutely did it.

I'm guessing it would take the US more than ~an hour or two to verify the audio. That's assuming the US cares enough to properly verify it, of course...

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

i fly airplanes posted:

Even if inconclusive, it's clear if the hospital was meant to be destroyed by the IDF it would have been.

TBH, as depressing as it is, this is the main reason why I'm skeptical that this was a missile/rocket by the IDF. Or it was a huge malfunction and they're covering their rear end.

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Foxrunsecurity posted:

The problem I have with this line of thinking is the assumption that destroying the structure of the building would be the only purpose. The various guided weapons we know they have can be targeted at vehicles and open areas just fine and there's plenty of potential valid reasons to do so, from your target just being in an open area to not wanting a city you're trying to take collapsing on your troops unpredictably. What is useful to vital in close air support can be just as useful to not leave a gigantic crater where a hospital should be while still rendering it functionally useless and/or run up that WHO number.

So, if we assume this strike was intentional by the IDF and the hospital was not the target, what would be the point in this target? And how is it more desirable than other potential targets in all of Gaza that the IDF haven't struck?

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Engorged Pedipalps posted:

To kill 500 people that someone thought were soldiers camped out next to the vehicles someone thought were technicals

Maera Sior posted:

If they're trying to get people to leave the hospital but don't want to risk collapsing it, targeting the hospital grounds might be a next step. If this were the case, and there were more people than they expected, I would expect it to play out as we saw: Take credit, then backpedal when the body count was announced.

This is based on what has been said by administrators, that the hospital was already targeted and received phone calls telling them to evacuate.

As I stated, if either of these were their goals, why not pick adjacent to a bigger target?

PT6A posted:

I mean, yeah, Dad, it looks pretty bad. My room smells like smoke and you caught me with a pack the other day, and yes there's butts from that same brand on the carpet, but I swear to god, a crazy person broke in and smoked the cigarettes that totally weren't mine -- I don't even smoke, I'd never smoke -- in my room.

There was a bombing of a hospital that Israel specifically warned would be bombed, by them. In what farcical, stupid universe are we supposed to believe this was a completely unrelated incident?

How did IDF gently caress up so bad that they missed their targeted building?

Kalit fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Oct 19, 2023

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Maera Sior posted:

I'm not getting what you're asking. Are you asking if their target was to hit a bunch of people, why not hit a bigger crowd? Or a bigger building?

ETA: Seriously, someone please explain this to me, it seems like I'm not parsing this right.

Since you were suggesting it's possible that the IDF was trying to get people to leave a hospital, why wouldn't they strike adjacent to a bigger hospital?

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Maera Sior posted:

They wanted that one cleared out for some reason. It had already been targeted.

If a hospital was the main goal, don't you think Al-Shifa would have made more sense as a larger target? Especially for PR reasons, as there is already a history of mis-use of it by Hamas that IDF could hide behind?

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Neurolimal posted:

Fairly clear why Israel is reluctant to negotiate for hostages; all signs suggest that Hamas is observant of the Quran with regards to treatment of captives. It makes the already-absurd argument that this is an existential war of defense against Jew-haters harder to sell.

It's heartening to hear that the hostages are doing well, that Hamas' network is still alive, and that survivors & hostages have easily been the sanest voices in the conflict. I imagine part of that is getting extended time to interact with each other, but I believe either Emanrescu or Alzhared pointed out that the kibbutz bordering Gaza are more left-leaning than others; possible that a lot of the hostages are predisposed to understanding.

Her interview mentions that the hostages were hit with sticks on their way to Gaza; in line with Shalit, where emotional fighters vent on the hostages, but by the time they're transferred kinder heads administrate.

Ummmm….what do you mean by this? This part to me reads as if you’re supportive of Hamas, is that a correct interpretation?

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

I said come in! posted:

I don't like using the term terrorist because it's so easily used by western super powers to discredit and quiet anyone who doesn't fall in line with their colonizer & white supremacist agenda. What makes hamas terrorists as opposed to the United States, or Israel, who also carry out horrific and barbaric attacks on people? I would prefer no one kill anyone else.

Who here has claimed that the US and/or Israel aren’t terrorists when they wipe out innocent civilians? I certainly would categorize that as terroristic behavior.

Stop trying to justify mass civilian attacks simply because it’s not coming from a “western super power”.

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

punishedkissinger posted:

that is one of the fundamental questions for Palestinians right? Fatah has never been able to stop the settlements and Hamas did.

So, my knowledge isn’t great on this, but can you explain how Hamas was [primarily] responsible for Israel’s settlement withdrawal? They weren’t in charge of Gaza yet. On top of that, some settlements from West Bank were also removed, which I would guess Hamas has no influence on.

It seemed like it was mostly due to PM Sharon pushing the plan (primarily influenced by his son). This part is where I’m fuzzy, since there might have been a lot more external influence going on that I’m unaware of.

Kalit fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Oct 24, 2023

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Marenghi posted:

Care to point to those, especially ones who tried the peaceful route and were suppressed.

Off-hand I can think of MLK.

The US women’s suffrage movement

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006
Y’all are goony as gently caress. Stop being pedantic nerds about what a “state” is and argue about the underlying issue with regards to possible outcome(s)

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Bel Shazar posted:

The article repeatedly says both 'jewish' and 'pro israel' and while it's a literal hate crime to intimidate people because they're jewish it seems perfectly reasonable to shout down and scare off pro-israel people, so I'm curious what the real story is. lovely reporting.

In your opinion, is "shouting down and scaring off" not an intimidation tactic?

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Groovelord Neato posted:

You should reread the part you bolded.

But it's clear in the article that at least some of the students were Jewish, even if all of them might not have been.

E VVV:

Carmant posted:

"We, students of Cooper Union, planned a peaceful protest to demand our institutions acknowledgement of the Israeli apartheid. This was in response to the school's one-sided stance and participation in the occupation of Palestine. We planned to peacefully protest outside the building before walking in and continuing our protest outside the president's office. We concluded our protest by calling out our demands through the hallways of the entire foundation building. When we reached the library, we were told that it was closed so we continued chanting outside the glass window of the library. Many different students of all backgrounds were in the library at the time. We would like to make it clear that our protest was not targeting any individual students or faculty, but the institution itself. We would like to reiterate that we DO NOT under any circumstance condone antisemitism and many members of the protest were Jewish."

Directly from the article you posted and by far the most reasonable assumption. If you really think a bunch of college kids were banging down the door of the library to do a pogrom you're totally delusional.

They should have addressed why they were banging on the door(s) of the library, which is much different than "continued chanting outside the glass window of the library", IMO.

Kalit fucked around with this message at 13:26 on Oct 26, 2023

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Carmant posted:

Sounds like they're singing/chanting and doing rhythmic banging on the doors? It's just an attention getting strategy I imagine. I don't know why people at protests do all the things they do, not a big protester here, but immediately jumping to the worst and most violent interpretation of any action is a pretty typical move when you're trying to shut down dissenting speech and that's what's going to happen with this story too.

Eh... if you flipped the script and have the roles reverse, I would say that it would also be real bad (well, hell, worse). Which I think is a good thing to take a step back and contemplate.

In my opinion, being inside of a place with angry sounding people outside banging on the doors is frightening, not "oh, it's a peaceful group of people who just want their voice heard and are hitting the door to the rhythm". Of course, maybe I just scare easier than you.

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