Israel vs Hamas

[partgypsy]

...
A big difference is that Israel is a state actor, Hezbollah isn't. This is why I don't consider Iranian civilians legitimate targets, because Iran has a marked military. So does Israel. This way it is possible to distinguish between military and non-military personnel. Hezbollah doesn't. They have some folks in uniform sometimes but the vast majority lurk in the shadows. It's easy to target the Israeli military because 90+% of them are in uniform and labelled buildings/tanks/structures.

Also, Israel just killed Ibrahim Aqil, who was responsible for the 1983 marine barracks bombing that killed 241 US military personnel. No "thank you" or "justice has been served" from the feckless Biden administration - disgraceful.

When Israel (the state actor) is using spies to covertly train, arm, and plan the assassination of Iranian civilians who were not military members . . . you don't consider this 'lurking in the shadows'?  What do you call it when Israel distinguishes between military and non-military personnel, and chooses to kill the non-military ones?

Is there not a double standard being advocated here?

Nuclear engineers working on Iran's nuclear weapons program are not mere civilians.

Some likely were, but not all the scientists assassinated were working on Iran's weapons program.  Moussad has a history of killing the wrong people while performing these extra-judicial murders and getting away with it/having the Israeli government attempt to cover it up (see the murder of waiter Ahmed Bouchikhi as one of the rare instances where six of the fifteen Moussad agents involved were caught and convicted in Norway as just one example - Israel was willing to pay some money to the family for the murder, but never admitted their mistake).

I've also got to ask you . . . how far exactly does justifiable killing based on military association go in your eyes?  You've asserted that anyone involved in a nuclear weapons program is not a civilian.  But what if you work in a factory that makes bombs?  What if you work in a factory that produces ammunition, some of which is for sale to the military and some for private use?  What if your factory produces bolts that are used in tank construction?  I'm curious, where exactly do you draw the line?

Do you agree with my correction, that nuclear engineers are not merely civilians?  Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons.  Iran wants Israel wiped off the map.  You calling nuclear engineers "civilians" needs correcting, because nuclear weapons are not a peaceful civilian enterprise.

I'm aware of multiple Iranian nuclear scientists being assassinated by Mossad, perhaps only the most famous cases.  If you're trying to make a point about the numbers, it would be better to discuss actual numbers.

As to the killing of a waiter in 1973, you left out vital context.  In 1972, the Palestinian militant organization Black September murdered 11 Israeli Olympic athletes.  That is the context for Mossad mistaking someone as the mastermind of that attack.  Mossad killed many members of both the PLO and Black September to avenge the deaths of its Olympic athletes.  When you divide that one waiter's death over the number of militants killed, your mention of a "history of killing the wrong people" rings hollow.  You're cherry picking one death, and ignoring hundreds of Palestinian terrorists and militants all tied to the same event, the same context.

Your list of "what ifs" doesn't mean much until Israel makes a practice of killing people in those roles.  Other than nuclear researchers/scientists/engineers, who does Israel target outside the military?  I haven't looked it up myself, but to me it makes more sense to discuss what happened.

I would follow Ellen o Grady on instagram. She lived in Gaza. She does a comic talking about the war, and the people she knew who have been killed or affected since the war started. These include translators, poets, social activists, people who ran a deaf school, and just regular folks. Some of them died after being detained or in prison. They were neither in hamas nor nuclear scientists.  https://www.instagram.com/ellenogradyart/  For the record I support Israel's right to exist. I do not support human rights violations, and feel the US needs to speak out or at least have support be contingent on following rules of war conduct.

[GuitarStv]

...
A big difference is that Israel is a state actor, Hezbollah isn't. This is why I don't consider Iranian civilians legitimate targets, because Iran has a marked military. So does Israel. This way it is possible to distinguish between military and non-military personnel. Hezbollah doesn't. They have some folks in uniform sometimes but the vast majority lurk in the shadows. It's easy to target the Israeli military because 90+% of them are in uniform and labelled buildings/tanks/structures.

Also, Israel just killed Ibrahim Aqil, who was responsible for the 1983 marine barracks bombing that killed 241 US military personnel. No "thank you" or "justice has been served" from the feckless Biden administration - disgraceful.

When Israel (the state actor) is using spies to covertly train, arm, and plan the assassination of Iranian civilians who were not military members . . . you don't consider this 'lurking in the shadows'?  What do you call it when Israel distinguishes between military and non-military personnel, and chooses to kill the non-military ones?

Is there not a double standard being advocated here?

Nuclear engineers working on Iran's nuclear weapons program are not mere civilians.

Some likely were, but not all the scientists assassinated were working on Iran's weapons program.  Moussad has a history of killing the wrong people while performing these extra-judicial murders and getting away with it/having the Israeli government attempt to cover it up (see the murder of waiter Ahmed Bouchikhi as one of the rare instances where six of the fifteen Moussad agents involved were caught and convicted in Norway as just one example - Israel was willing to pay some money to the family for the murder, but never admitted their mistake).

I've also got to ask you . . . how far exactly does justifiable killing based on military association go in your eyes?  You've asserted that anyone involved in a nuclear weapons program is not a civilian.  But what if you work in a factory that makes bombs?  What if you work in a factory that produces ammunition, some of which is for sale to the military and some for private use?  What if your factory produces bolts that are used in tank construction?  I'm curious, where exactly do you draw the line?

Do you agree with my correction, that nuclear engineers are not merely civilians?  Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons.  Iran wants Israel wiped off the map.  You calling nuclear engineers "civilians" needs correcting, because nuclear weapons are not a peaceful civilian enterprise.

No, I don't.  Iran has nuclear power plants used for generating electricity for it's civilian population.  Iran also has a nuclear weapons program.  Israel has assassinated people working on the former as well as the latter.

The problem with extra-judicial murders being sanctioned and carried out by a country is that oversight and accountability are both non-existant.  I'm not OK with any state acting in this manner.  Without strong and open judicial oversight, abuses will certainly occur, and the state has no reason to ever come clean or try to correct mistakes made (to the extent that this is even possible - dead is dead).

As to the killing of a waiter in 1973, you left out vital context.  In 1972, the Palestinian militant organization Black September murdered 11 Israeli Olympic athletes.  That is the context for Mossad mistaking someone as the mastermind of that attack.  Mossad killed many members of both the PLO and Black September to avenge the deaths of its Olympic athletes.  When you divide that one waiter's death over the number of militants killed, your mention of a "history of killing the wrong people" rings hollow.  You're cherry picking one death, and ignoring hundreds of Palestinian terrorists and militants all tied to the same event, the same context.

Context actually makes it worse in my eyes.  Israel's thirst for vengeance overrode their interest in finding the correct party to retaliate against . . . And then they refused to ever take responsibility for their actions.  Being innocent and wronged doesn't give you the right to wrong another innocent person because you feel bloodlust.

Your list of "what ifs" doesn't mean much until Israel makes a practice of killing people in those roles.  Other than nuclear researchers/scientists/engineers, who does Israel target outside the military?

Israel has been , and continues to restrict flow of medical supplies and food into Gaza.  This was premeditated (as evidenced by comments made by senior Israeli politicians) and is intended to punish Palestinan civilians for the actions of Hamas.  It's not currently known how many civilians have died in Gaza by these actions, but most estimates I've read that deaths are higher from this than the 41,000 dead from Israeli weapons since October 7th.  This is unequivocally genocide.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Iranian nuclear engineers provide the ability for Iran to nuke Israel.  You can't acknowledge that as a threat, we can't really agree on anything.  But perhaps we can agree on another news story.

"Israel raids and shuts down Al Jazeera’s bureau in Ramallah in the West Bank"
"Israeli troops raided the offices of the satellite news network Al Jazeera in the Israeli-occupied West Bank early Sunday, ordering the bureau to shut down amid a widening campaign by Israel targeting the Qatar-funded broadcaster as it covers the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip."

"The move marked the first time Israel has ever shuttered a foreign news outlet operating in the country."
https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-al-jazeera-gaza-war-hamas-4abdb2969e39e7ad99dfbf9caa7bb32c

This is an attack on free speech.  I don't agree with Al Jazeera's focus on Gaza to the exclusion of other news coverage, but that's an editorial decision for them to make.  But it is not for the Israeli military to decide.

[ChpBstrd]

Iranian nuclear engineers provide the ability for Iran to nuke Israel.  You can't acknowledge that as a threat, we can't really agree on anything.  But perhaps we can agree on another news story.

"Israel raids and shuts down Al Jazeera’s bureau in Ramallah in the West Bank"
"Israeli troops raided the offices of the satellite news network Al Jazeera in the Israeli-occupied West Bank early Sunday, ordering the bureau to shut down amid a widening campaign by Israel targeting the Qatar-funded broadcaster as it covers the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip."

"The move marked the first time Israel has ever shuttered a foreign news outlet operating in the country."
https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-al-jazeera-gaza-war-hamas-4abdb2969e39e7ad99dfbf9caa7bb32c

This is an attack on free speech.  I don't agree with Al Jazeera's focus on Gaza to the exclusion of other news coverage, but that's an editorial decision for them to make.  But it is not for the Israeli military to decide.

Al Jazeera was one of the few media outlets brave enough to put journalists on the ground. As such, they offered a higher level of coverage than the US or European networks which often just had journalists "reporting" (talking into a camera) from half a kilometer outside of Gaza, or being walked around the safest areas by Israeli troops. Was it biased against Israel? Absolutely. But at least they offered a view inside Gaza. They had the linguistic skills to speak to the residents, get through the crossings, sustain themselves, etc. and therefore bought something new to the table compared to everyone else.

[GuitarStv]

Iranian nuclear engineers provide the ability for Iran to nuke Israel.  You can't acknowledge that as a threat, we can't really agree on anything.

You didn't ask if I acknowledged that people with knowledge of nuclear science are a threat.  You were asking me to confirm your statement that they're not really civilians.  The two questions are quite different.

In the latter it would be legal under international law to attack and kill these scientists - as they would be considered military fighting forces.  As I mentioned, many of the scientists in Iran's nuclear program are working power generation - clearly a civilian and not military job.  They are not military.

For the former question - are people with knowledge of nuclear science a threat to Israel . . . sure.  I mean depending on your viewpoint, you could argue that free speech is a threat to Israel's defense (as Israel has been doing since the start of their war against Hamas), criticism of the government is a threat for Israel, following the Geneva conventions is a threat for Israel, giving people a fair trial is a threat for Israel . . . all of these things have effectively been stated by the actions that Israel's government has taken.  We live in a world where there are plenty of potential threats that don't justify murder.

But perhaps we can agree on another news story.

"Israel raids and shuts down Al Jazeera’s bureau in Ramallah in the West Bank"
"Israeli troops raided the offices of the satellite news network Al Jazeera in the Israeli-occupied West Bank early Sunday, ordering the bureau to shut down amid a widening campaign by Israel targeting the Qatar-funded broadcaster as it covers the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip."

"The move marked the first time Israel has ever shuttered a foreign news outlet operating in the country."
https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-al-jazeera-gaza-war-hamas-4abdb2969e39e7ad99dfbf9caa7bb32c

This is an attack on free speech.  I don't agree with Al Jazeera's focus on Gaza to the exclusion of other news coverage, but that's an editorial decision for them to make.  But it is not for the Israeli military to decide.

Yep.  This is nothing new though, we were talking about it in May:

Since the start of this war, Israel's government has been cracking down on freedom of the press in order to hide the reality of the war being waged in Gaza from the Israeli people (https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/israel-gaza-war-press-freedom-1.7218365).  This has included seizing equipment from the Associated Press, banning Al-Jazeera from operating in Israel at all by blocking all of it's news channels/websites and shutting down it's places of operation via government raids, prohibiting foreign and Israeli journalists from reporting in Gaza without military chaperones.

Netanyahu himself has avoided giving any interviews about the war in Gaza at all with Israeli news since it started, preferring only to give interviews with foreign news stations and only in English.  Journalists and members of the media have commented about the extraordinary levels of censorship from the Israeli military and self-censorship that Israeli media has performed during this conflict so far.  This includes showing only footage received from the IDF absent the atrocities that the rest of the world is aware of, more than 600 news articles being directly banned by the IDF before publication, and more than 2,700 news articles being censored or redacted by the IDF prior to being printed.  (https://www.972mag.com/israeli-military-censor-media-2023/)

This all makes sense.  It's hard to protest against injustice being done in your name when you aren't aware of the injustice.  A democracy is much easier to run when you can keep voters ignorant.  Netanyahu has seen how effective media control is when dictators use it, and is checking how far it can be pushed in his own country.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

"Israel raids and shuts down Al Jazeera’s bureau in Ramallah in the West Bank"

Yep.  This is nothing new though, we were talking about it in May:

You were not talking about this specific Al Jazeera bureau being shut down in May, because it happened this week.

[GuitarStv]

"Israel raids and shuts down Al Jazeera’s bureau in Ramallah in the West Bank"

Yep.  This is nothing new though, we were talking about it in May:

You were not talking about this specific Al Jazeera bureau being shut down in May, because it happened this week.

Sure . . . was just pointing out that Israel has been raiding and shutting down news organizations unwilling to censor their reports since the beginning of the conflict in Gaza.  This is nothing new, it's a continuation of Israeli government policy.

[GuitarStv]

Well, Israel has begun another ground invasion of Lebanon.  Iran has been launching waves of missiles into Israel in retaliation.  It seems likely that Israel will perform airstrikes in Iran.  Seems like the US has completely lost any control they had of Israel.  Fuck.

[Financial.Velociraptor]

Well, Israel has begun another ground invasion of Lebanon.  Iran has been launching waves of missiles into Israel in retaliation.  It seems likely that Israel will perform airstrikes in Iran.  Seems like the US has completely lost any control they had of Israel.  Fuck.

Biden is super weak right now.  Lame duck as he isn't running and publicly humiliated as a senile old man.  Kamala has hands tied because intervening is a no win position for her.  Condemning Iran for Kamala means denying the sovereignty of the Palestinians in a weird oblique way.  Loses votes of Muslims and the areligious and even anti-Zionist Jews.  Condemning Israel means the Evangelicals lose their shit.   Her best option is silence (and subsequently looking weak and ineffective). 

[dividendman]

Well, Israel has begun another ground invasion of Lebanon.  Iran has been launching waves of missiles into Israel in retaliation.  It seems likely that Israel will perform airstrikes in Iran.  Seems like the US has completely lost any control they had of Israel.  Fuck.

The US should not seek to control Israel. The US should be joining Israel in eliminating Hezbollah and Hamas (both designated terrorist organizations by the US). The US should also seek an authorization for use of military force against the IRGC which is also a designated terrorist organization - although this may be covered under the Sept. 11 AUMF.

Note the US naval ships in the middle-east have been fired upon numerous times by Iran-backed Houthi militants, to no response. Biden is a weak president. There should be overwhelming force applied when the US military is attacked.

[GuitarStv]

Well, Israel has begun another ground invasion of Lebanon.  Iran has been launching waves of missiles into Israel in retaliation.  It seems likely that Israel will perform airstrikes in Iran.  Seems like the US has completely lost any control they had of Israel.  Fuck.

The US should not seek to control Israel. The US should be joining Israel in eliminating Hezbollah and Hamas (both designated terrorist organizations by the US). The US should also seek an authorization for use of military force against the IRGC which is also a designated terrorist organization - although this may be covered under the Sept. 11 AUMF.

I'm on board with that, provided no war crimes are committed.  It's only when people fighting terrorists start acting like terrorists and wantonly killing civilians where I get upset.  These actions (beyond the obvious human costs/toll) tend to prolong and worsen conflict.  Historically you can't really kill your way to peace.

[dividendman]

Well, Israel has begun another ground invasion of Lebanon.  Iran has been launching waves of missiles into Israel in retaliation.  It seems likely that Israel will perform airstrikes in Iran.  Seems like the US has completely lost any control they had of Israel.  Fuck.

The US should not seek to control Israel. The US should be joining Israel in eliminating Hezbollah and Hamas (both designated terrorist organizations by the US). The US should also seek an authorization for use of military force against the IRGC which is also a designated terrorist organization - although this may be covered under the Sept. 11 AUMF.

I'm on board with that, provided no war crimes are committed.  It's only when people fighting terrorists start acting like terrorists and wantonly killing civilians where I get upset.  These actions (beyond the obvious human costs/toll) tend to prolong and worsen conflict. Historically you can't really kill your way to peace.

Citation needed. I think in recent history the usual way peace has been achieved has been through a lot of killing. Usually it's so much killing that one side capitulates or is virtually eliminated. See: European colonization, WW1, WW2, Chinese civil war/revolution, US civil war, Vietnam war, etc.

When there is not a lot of killing (or not so much killing that there is no capitulation) you get forever wars: see North/South Korea, Israel/Palestine.

[GuitarStv]

Well, Israel has begun another ground invasion of Lebanon.  Iran has been launching waves of missiles into Israel in retaliation.  It seems likely that Israel will perform airstrikes in Iran.  Seems like the US has completely lost any control they had of Israel.  Fuck.

The US should not seek to control Israel. The US should be joining Israel in eliminating Hezbollah and Hamas (both designated terrorist organizations by the US). The US should also seek an authorization for use of military force against the IRGC which is also a designated terrorist organization - although this may be covered under the Sept. 11 AUMF.

I'm on board with that, provided no war crimes are committed.  It's only when people fighting terrorists start acting like terrorists and wantonly killing civilians where I get upset.  These actions (beyond the obvious human costs/toll) tend to prolong and worsen conflict. Historically you can't really kill your way to peace.

Citation needed. I think in recent history the usual way peace has been achieved has been through a lot of killing. Usually it's so much killing that one side capitulates or is virtually eliminated. See: European colonization, WW1, WW2, Chinese civil war/revolution, US civil war, Vietnam war, etc.

When there is not a lot of killing (or not so much killing that there is no capitulation) you get forever wars: see North/South Korea, Israel/Palestine.

You're confusing capitulation with peace.  World War I didn't lead to peace.  It led to capitulation forcing an acceptance of ridiculous terms that were then a direct cause of WWII.  World War II lead to peace not because of the capitulation of Japan and Germany but because of the efforts made reconstructing both countries.  The US civil war didn't lead to peace because of the deaths . . . peace happened later by reintegrating the south with the north.

It's not usually the killing that leads to peace.

[Poundwise]

I don't think that peace is the goal of killing in wars.

You can kill your way to freedom, or resource acquisition.

[GuitarStv]

Israel has demanded that the UN remove peacekeeping forces from the border between Israel and Lebanon, and has deliberately and repeatedly fired upon UN forces - wounding more than twenty peacekeepers so far in separate attacks (https://www.euronews.com/2024/10/13/netanyahu-says-un-peacekeepers-in-lebanon-should-be-moved-out-of-harms-way-immediately).

It seems quite plausible that Ireland's Foreign Minister is correct in saying that Israel is doing this "essentially to drive the eyes and ears out of south Lebanon and to give itself free rein."  This is after all what it has done in Gaza in a partially successful attempt to hide the genocide being perpetrated.

[dividendman]

Israel has demanded that the UN remove peacekeeping forces from the border between Israel and Lebanon, and has deliberately and repeatedly fired upon UN forces - wounding more than twenty peacekeepers so far in separate attacks (https://www.euronews.com/2024/10/13/netanyahu-says-un-peacekeepers-in-lebanon-should-be-moved-out-of-harms-way-immediately).

It seems quite plausible that Ireland's Foreign Minister is correct in saying that Israel is doing this "essentially to drive the eyes and ears out of south Lebanon and to give itself free rein."  This is after all what it has done in Gaza in a partially successful attempt to hide the genocide being perpetrated.

What's the point of having so-called "peacekeepers" there if Hezbollah can fire rockets into Israel with impunity as they have been doing for the last year+? What peace is being kept? The problem is Lebanon has allowed a non-state terrorist militia to control a large portion of the country. Lebanon should be fighting Hezbollah too.

Hezbollah created this conflict with Israel. Gaza has nothing to do with Hezbollah. Israel was not attacking Lebanese territory before the Oct. 7 actions of Hezbollah to "show support" for Hamas.

[GuitarStv]

Israel has demanded that the UN remove peacekeeping forces from the border between Israel and Lebanon, and has deliberately and repeatedly fired upon UN forces - wounding more than twenty peacekeepers so far in separate attacks (https://www.euronews.com/2024/10/13/netanyahu-says-un-peacekeepers-in-lebanon-should-be-moved-out-of-harms-way-immediately).

It seems quite plausible that Ireland's Foreign Minister is correct in saying that Israel is doing this "essentially to drive the eyes and ears out of south Lebanon and to give itself free rein."  This is after all what it has done in Gaza in a partially successful attempt to hide the genocide being perpetrated.

What's the point of having so-called "peacekeepers" there if Hezbollah can fire rockets into Israel with impunity as they have been doing for the last year+? What peace is being kept? The problem is Lebanon has allowed a non-state terrorist militia to control a large portion of the country. Lebanon should be fighting Hezbollah too.

Hezbollah created this conflict with Israel. Gaza has nothing to do with Hezbollah. Israel was not attacking Lebanese territory before the Oct. 7 actions of Hezbollah to "show support" for Hamas.

Israel performed a series of airstrikes in Lebanon in April of 2023 in retaliation for rocket attacks that Hezbollah fired in retaliation to repeated Israeli police mistreatment of Muslims at the Al-Aqsa mosque (which were ordered by extreme right Israeli politicians that Netenyahu placed in power).  There was certainly conflict going on between Israel and Lebanon prior to October 7th, and it did definately involve the actions of Israel in Palestine.

UNFIL's job since it was established in the 70's has been to protect civilians in the area, several times now to ensure that Israel complies with international law and withdraws it's occupying forces from Lebanon, and to occupy the blue zone keeing both countries from invading each other over the disputed border between Israel and Lebanon.

Hezbollah sucks, but it's important to remember why Hezbollah exists - it formed directly because of Israel's 18 year occupation of Lebanon starting in 1982.  The constant policy of occupy and oppress that Israel employs has not been successful from a peace perspective.  Given the disregard for civilian casualties and non-combatants (like UN troops) shown so far I suspect that the continuation of this policy will again fail to achieve that objective.  If it is an objective at all.

[dividendman]

Israel has demanded that the UN remove peacekeeping forces from the border between Israel and Lebanon, and has deliberately and repeatedly fired upon UN forces - wounding more than twenty peacekeepers so far in separate attacks (https://www.euronews.com/2024/10/13/netanyahu-says-un-peacekeepers-in-lebanon-should-be-moved-out-of-harms-way-immediately).

It seems quite plausible that Ireland's Foreign Minister is correct in saying that Israel is doing this "essentially to drive the eyes and ears out of south Lebanon and to give itself free rein."  This is after all what it has done in Gaza in a partially successful attempt to hide the genocide being perpetrated.

What's the point of having so-called "peacekeepers" there if Hezbollah can fire rockets into Israel with impunity as they have been doing for the last year+? What peace is being kept? The problem is Lebanon has allowed a non-state terrorist militia to control a large portion of the country. Lebanon should be fighting Hezbollah too.

Hezbollah created this conflict with Israel. Gaza has nothing to do with Hezbollah. Israel was not attacking Lebanese territory before the Oct. 7 actions of Hezbollah to "show support" for Hamas.

Israel performed a series of airstrikes in Lebanon in April of 2023 in retaliation for rocket attacks that Hezbollah fired in retaliation to repeated Israeli police mistreatment of Muslims at the Al-Aqsa mosque (which were ordered by extreme right Israeli politicians that Netenyahu placed in power).  There was certainly conflict going on between Israel and Lebanon prior to October 7th, and it did definately involve the actions of Israel in Palestine.

UNFIL's job since it was established in the 70's has been to protect civilians in the area, several times now to ensure that Israel complies with international law and withdraws it's occupying forces from Lebanon, and to occupy the blue zone keeing both countries from invading each other over the disputed border between Israel and Lebanon.

Hezbollah sucks, but it's important to remember why Hezbollah exists - it formed directly because of Israel's 18 year occupation of Lebanon starting in 1982.  The constant policy of occupy and oppress that Israel employs has not been successful from a peace perspective.  Given the disregard for civilian casualties and non-combatants (like UN troops) shown so far I suspect that the continuation of this policy will again fail to achieve that objective.  If it is an objective at all.

UNFIL's job was not to "protect the civilians in the area", its mandate was to: "confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restore peace and security in the border region and assist the Lebanese government in reestablishing control in the southern part of the country"

1) confirm withdrawal of Israeli forces, this was done
2) restore peace and security - it looks like they "restored peace" by allowing a terrorist militia to govern the south of Lebanon and fire at Israel
3) assist the Lebanese government in reestablishing control in the southern part of the country - this was an abject failure since the Lebanese armed forces have no control over the south, instead it's a terrorist non-state militia called Hezbollah.

Had UNIFIL actually accomplished its objectives the area wouldn't be in its current state. The UN continues to be a joke.

Yes, Hezbollah exists because of the Israeli occupation. Why did Israel occupy Lebanon? Because they were repeatedly attacked by militias from Lebanon.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 is a resolution that was intended to resolve the 2006 Lebanon War.
... the disarmament of armed groups including Hezbollah, with no armed forces other than UNIFIL and Lebanese military south of the Litani River,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1701

Hezbollah's attacks over the past year demonstrate they are still armed, and are occupying the area prohibited by the 2006 UN Resolution.  Lebanon, in turn, has accused Israel of holding territory that belongs to Lebanon (In the case of Shebaa farms, "with 81 different maps being studied; the UN concluded that there is no evidence of the abandoned farmlands being Lebanese".  I didn't look at other claims).

UNIFIL stands for "United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon".  This "interim" force has been there 46 years!  And for over 40 of those years, Hezbollah has existed and remained armed.  Their core mission has failed, and they remain, which is odd.

I disagree with Israel banning Al Jazeera News, but it also shows that most countries don't have the first amendment protections of the U.S. ("freedom of the press").  UNIFIL tweeted publicly about "three platoons of IDF soldiers crossing the blue line into Lebanon", which raises the question of how their mandate works during a war.  Notice they didn't just convey information to the government of Lebanon, but made it public - where Hezbollah could see it.  I can see why the IDF doesn't appreciate their moves being tweeted by UNIFIL.

[ChpBstrd]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 is a resolution that was intended to resolve the 2006 Lebanon War.
... the disarmament of armed groups including Hezbollah, with no armed forces other than UNIFIL and Lebanese military south of the Litani River,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1701

Hezbollah's attacks over the past year demonstrate they are still armed, and are occupying the area prohibited by the 2006 UN Resolution.  Lebanon, in turn, has accused Israel of holding territory that belongs to Lebanon (In the case of Shebaa farms, "with 81 different maps being studied; the UN concluded that there is no evidence of the abandoned farmlands being Lebanese".  I didn't look at other claims).

UNIFIL stands for "United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon".  This "interim" force has been there 46 years!  And for over 40 of those years, Hezbollah has existed and remained armed.  Their core mission has failed, and they remain, which is odd.

I disagree with Israel banning Al Jazeera News, but it also shows that most countries don't have the first amendment protections of the U.S. ("freedom of the press").  UNIFIL tweeted publicly about "three platoons of IDF soldiers crossing the blue line into Lebanon", which raises the question of how their mandate works during a war.  Notice they didn't just convey information to the government of Lebanon, but made it public - where Hezbollah could see it.  I can see why the IDF doesn't appreciate their moves being tweeted by UNIFIL.

Perhaps the UN's mission has evolved since Resolution 1701, in an unwritten direction. Given that the original objective of disarming Hezbollah was impossible with the available resources, the UN forces stayed to deter an Israeli invasion / ethnic cleansing. That is to say, in the event of war, there would be third-party witnesses on the ground recording and reporting war crimes and routine troop movements, rather than the usual finger pointing between combatants. This would limit the scope of war.

Al Jazeera played that role in Gaza - with a pro-Palestinian tilt - and their journalists were eventually banned. Banning the UN would be a more diplomatically difficult maneuver for Israel, but intimidating the peacekeepers may be a possible way to keep them hunkered down in their camps.

UN peacekeeper in Lebanon is not a job I would take.

[GuitarStv]

Israel has demanded that the UN remove peacekeeping forces from the border between Israel and Lebanon, and has deliberately and repeatedly fired upon UN forces - wounding more than twenty peacekeepers so far in separate attacks (https://www.euronews.com/2024/10/13/netanyahu-says-un-peacekeepers-in-lebanon-should-be-moved-out-of-harms-way-immediately).

It seems quite plausible that Ireland's Foreign Minister is correct in saying that Israel is doing this "essentially to drive the eyes and ears out of south Lebanon and to give itself free rein."  This is after all what it has done in Gaza in a partially successful attempt to hide the genocide being perpetrated.

What's the point of having so-called "peacekeepers" there if Hezbollah can fire rockets into Israel with impunity as they have been doing for the last year+? What peace is being kept? The problem is Lebanon has allowed a non-state terrorist militia to control a large portion of the country. Lebanon should be fighting Hezbollah too.

Hezbollah created this conflict with Israel. Gaza has nothing to do with Hezbollah. Israel was not attacking Lebanese territory before the Oct. 7 actions of Hezbollah to "show support" for Hamas.

Israel performed a series of airstrikes in Lebanon in April of 2023 in retaliation for rocket attacks that Hezbollah fired in retaliation to repeated Israeli police mistreatment of Muslims at the Al-Aqsa mosque (which were ordered by extreme right Israeli politicians that Netenyahu placed in power).  There was certainly conflict going on between Israel and Lebanon prior to October 7th, and it did definately involve the actions of Israel in Palestine.

UNFIL's job since it was established in the 70's has been to protect civilians in the area, several times now to ensure that Israel complies with international law and withdraws it's occupying forces from Lebanon, and to occupy the blue zone keeing both countries from invading each other over the disputed border between Israel and Lebanon.

Hezbollah sucks, but it's important to remember why Hezbollah exists - it formed directly because of Israel's 18 year occupation of Lebanon starting in 1982.  The constant policy of occupy and oppress that Israel employs has not been successful from a peace perspective.  Given the disregard for civilian casualties and non-combatants (like UN troops) shown so far I suspect that the continuation of this policy will again fail to achieve that objective.  If it is an objective at all.

UNFIL's job was not to "protect the civilians in the area", its mandate was to: "confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restore peace and security in the border region and assist the Lebanese government in reestablishing control in the southern part of the country"

1) confirm withdrawal of Israeli forces, this was done
2) restore peace and security - it looks like they "restored peace" by allowing a terrorist militia to govern the south of Lebanon and fire at Israel
3) assist the Lebanese government in reestablishing control in the southern part of the country - this was an abject failure since the Lebanese armed forces have no control over the south, instead it's a terrorist non-state militia called Hezbollah.

Had UNIFIL actually accomplished its objectives the area wouldn't be in its current state. The UN continues to be a joke.

UNIFIL definitely didn't achieve all of their goals.  (They were also supposed to ensure that Israel stopped violating Lebanese airspace, something that never happened.)  Until the election of Israel's far right government and the repeated provocations made by Israel that re-started hostilities though, there was an uneasy peace in the area.

But that's kind of beside the point.  Regardless of whether or not you think they did a good job, are you arguing that it's right for Israeli forces to deliberately target known non-combatants (like UN peacekeepers) while invading another country?  If so, why?

Yes, Hezbollah exists because of the Israeli occupation. Why did Israel occupy Lebanon? Because they were repeatedly attacked by militias from Lebanon.

Yep.  And why were there Palestinian militias in Lebanon attacking Israel?  Illegal occupation of Palestine by Israel.  I'm not arguing that the Lebanese are blameless, or that the Israelis are awful people.  There is a long history of back and forth between these two groups.  Both groups have consistently done terrible things to the people of the other side.

Here in the west Israel is often painted as the good guy in these conflicts.  When they brazenly do the wrong thing, it needs to be called out.  If it keeps happening, they need to get as much military support from us as the people who they're fighting against (who also regularly do the wrong thing).  Otherwise you're just jumping into a violent religious war and picking one religion to support - which seems fundamentally wrong.

[dividendman]

Israel has demanded that the UN remove peacekeeping forces from the border between Israel and Lebanon, and has deliberately and repeatedly fired upon UN forces - wounding more than twenty peacekeepers so far in separate attacks (https://www.euronews.com/2024/10/13/netanyahu-says-un-peacekeepers-in-lebanon-should-be-moved-out-of-harms-way-immediately).

It seems quite plausible that Ireland's Foreign Minister is correct in saying that Israel is doing this "essentially to drive the eyes and ears out of south Lebanon and to give itself free rein."  This is after all what it has done in Gaza in a partially successful attempt to hide the genocide being perpetrated.

What's the point of having so-called "peacekeepers" there if Hezbollah can fire rockets into Israel with impunity as they have been doing for the last year+? What peace is being kept? The problem is Lebanon has allowed a non-state terrorist militia to control a large portion of the country. Lebanon should be fighting Hezbollah too.

Hezbollah created this conflict with Israel. Gaza has nothing to do with Hezbollah. Israel was not attacking Lebanese territory before the Oct. 7 actions of Hezbollah to "show support" for Hamas.

Israel performed a series of airstrikes in Lebanon in April of 2023 in retaliation for rocket attacks that Hezbollah fired in retaliation to repeated Israeli police mistreatment of Muslims at the Al-Aqsa mosque (which were ordered by extreme right Israeli politicians that Netenyahu placed in power).  There was certainly conflict going on between Israel and Lebanon prior to October 7th, and it did definately involve the actions of Israel in Palestine.

UNFIL's job since it was established in the 70's has been to protect civilians in the area, several times now to ensure that Israel complies with international law and withdraws it's occupying forces from Lebanon, and to occupy the blue zone keeing both countries from invading each other over the disputed border between Israel and Lebanon.

Hezbollah sucks, but it's important to remember why Hezbollah exists - it formed directly because of Israel's 18 year occupation of Lebanon starting in 1982.  The constant policy of occupy and oppress that Israel employs has not been successful from a peace perspective.  Given the disregard for civilian casualties and non-combatants (like UN troops) shown so far I suspect that the continuation of this policy will again fail to achieve that objective.  If it is an objective at all.

UNFIL's job was not to "protect the civilians in the area", its mandate was to: "confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restore peace and security in the border region and assist the Lebanese government in reestablishing control in the southern part of the country"

1) confirm withdrawal of Israeli forces, this was done
2) restore peace and security - it looks like they "restored peace" by allowing a terrorist militia to govern the south of Lebanon and fire at Israel
3) assist the Lebanese government in reestablishing control in the southern part of the country - this was an abject failure since the Lebanese armed forces have no control over the south, instead it's a terrorist non-state militia called Hezbollah.

Had UNIFIL actually accomplished its objectives the area wouldn't be in its current state. The UN continues to be a joke.

UNIFIL definitely didn't achieve all of their goals.  (They were also supposed to ensure that Israel stopped violating Lebanese airspace, something that never happened.)  Until the election of Israel's far right government and the repeated provocations made by Israel that re-started hostilities though, there was an uneasy peace in the area.

But that's kind of beside the point.  Regardless of whether or not you think they did a good job, are you arguing that it's right for Israeli forces to deliberately target known non-combatants (like UN peacekeepers) while invading another country?  If so, why?

Yes, Hezbollah exists because of the Israeli occupation. Why did Israel occupy Lebanon? Because they were repeatedly attacked by militias from Lebanon.

Yep.  And why were there Palestinian militias in Lebanon attacking Israel?  Illegal occupation of Palestine by Israel.  I'm not arguing that the Lebanese are blameless, or that the Israelis are awful people.  There is a long history of back and forth between these two groups.  Both groups have consistently done terrible things to the people of the other side.

Here in the west Israel is often painted as the good guy in these conflicts.  When they brazenly do the wrong thing, it needs to be called out.  If it keeps happening, they need to get as much military support from us as the people who they're fighting against (who also regularly do the wrong thing).  Otherwise you're just jumping into a violent religious war and picking one religion to support - which seems fundamentally wrong.

The UN warkeepers are in an active combat zone giving aid and comfort to the enemy and giving away Israeli troop positions. They have been warned to leave. They are armed. We've already seen repeated examples in this thread of Hamas and Hezbollah using UN and civilian infrastructure to hide their weapons, troops and leadership.

Israel is the good guy. I always come back to the societal norms. Look at Israel's society and the freedom and rights its citizens enjoy (including its non-Jewish citizens). You are on the side of a culture that would stone to death many of the people protesting Israel. If one has to emerge victorious I want it to be Israel. If a society has to collapse I'd rather it be a repressive society.

[ChpBstrd]

@GuitarStv I generally agree and don't think this situation has a "good guys".

What we in the West don't see - because it is too unpopular for our media to show - is the way Israel mistreats the Palestinians under its control. Land seizures, lynchings by settlers, arbitrary detentions without trial, arbitrary shootings with no legal recourse, economic strangleholds, forced poverty, beatings, roadblocks, lack of water, etc. What the pro-Palestinian activists don't see is the relentless terrorism against Israeli civilians, the vicious anti-Semitism taught to children, the alliances with the same terrorist organizations that target Americans, the genocidal intent, and the oppressive cultural/political structures underlying it all.

As I've said before, the reason these sides cannot come to a negotiated agreement is because they each consider control over every inch of the "holy land" to be a cause too sacred to give up in negotiations or to compromise through shared governance schemes. As long as they believe this, they will be doomed to keep killing each other's children until one side completes the genocide of the other. Genocide is thus the only possible outcome, despite diplomatic efforts from outside countries to make peace. I do not state this from an emotional position of gloom or pessimism. It's literally the only conclusion supported by observations, if not from hundreds of years of history.

US military assistance to Israel was supposed to prevent a genocide of the Israelis by the Palestinians, who outnumber the Israelis and are backed by oil money. But perhaps the assistance has created a disproportionate level of power in favor of the Israelis. Perhaps now the aid is not preventing war, but is instead encouraging it.

This is not a problem for the U.S. based Christians who would vote against any politician who dared bring up reductions in military aid. From their point of view, the Israelis are fighting on their behalf to maintain tourist access to the "holy land", if not fulfilling prophecy. Their attitudes, and the tight nature of the U.S's two-party elections, ensure that the aid money will continue to flow, even if it is provoking land grabs and the bombing of densely populated civilian areas.

Thus the three religions are locked in a deadly struggle for control over the "holy land". It is unhelpful, but I'll note anyway the irony that followers of each religion believe controlling the holy land will bestow blessings upon them. Instead they are locked in a curse of their own creation.

I am uneasy with being dragged into this fight, because I know it means more 9/11's, a higher national debt, and a bit of innocent blood on my hands when I pay taxes - namely the children and nonbelievers living in each civilization.

[GuitarStv]

The UN warkeepers are in an active combat zone giving aid and comfort to the enemy and giving away Israeli troop positions. They have been warned to leave. They are armed. We've already seen repeated examples in this thread of Hamas and Hezbollah using UN and civilian infrastructure to hide their weapons, troops and leadership.

Israel is the good guy. I always come back to the societal norms. Look at Israel's society and the freedom and rights its citizens enjoy (including its non-Jewish citizens). You are on the side of a culture that would stone to death many of the people protesting Israel. If one has to emerge victorious I want it to be Israel. If a society has to collapse I'd rather it be a repressive society.

Where we differ is that I'm not on a side.

Hamas is filled with shitty people, I'd be happy if they were wiped out entirely.  That said, I don't believe that committing genocide in the name of wiping out Hamas is acceptable.  It's not going to result in a solution, just more hate.  A better solution would have been to not support Hamas and use the Israeli military to funnel money to them in order to sabotage peace talks over the past decade.  Hezbollah (at least the military/terrorist wing of the organization) also sucks.  I'd be happy if the military wing of Hezbollah was completely wiped out too.  I don't believe that killing UN peacekeepers and Lebanese civilians in order to attack Hezbollah is acceptable.  Again, it is not a real solution . . . doing this sort of thing is why Hezbollah exists to begin with.  It will result simply in more hate and fighting.

We've already seen the huge number of serving Israeli politicians who planned for and are now carrying out genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.  That's not defense.  We've seen that the Israeli military is OK with firing on non-combatant members of the UN.  We've watched as Israel bombed humanitarian aid organizations who were in close communication with the Israeli military.  We've seen Israeli soldiers gun down Israeli hostages waving white flags and speaking in Yiddish because the soldiers thought they were Palestinians.  We've seen the media censorship and media suppression that the Israeli government has done to hide the truth from the people of Israel and the lengths that they'll go to to hide what's happening in Gaza from the world.  There's the oppression of the Palestinians in the West Bank and the casual murders and crime perpetrated by so called 'settlers' OK'd by the Israeli government.  This list goes on and on.

Absolutely, Israel is a better place for gay people.  It's much more democratic than the countries it is currently at war with.  It's generally a pretty free place for Jewish people, and often also for Muslims.  There's lots that I like about Israeli society more than Iranian, Lebanese, or Palestinian society.  But that doesn't and shouldn't give them carte blanche to do anything.  Over the past year and a bit, Israelis have killed orders of magnitude more civilians than the terrorists they're supposed to be fighting.  Israel is currently the biggest problem in the middle east.  Recognizing that doesn't mean I support the people they're fighting.  It means I want them to stop being the bad guys too.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Furthering the reach of it's state sponsored policy of indiscriminate violence against civilians, Israel has taken credit for the wounding of 2,800 people in Lebanon (https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/17/middleeast/lebanon-hezbollah-pagers-explosions-intl/index.html) - killing at least 12 so far (including two children and four healthcare workers - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2kn10xxldo) via bombs hidden in pagers and walkie talkies.  Moussad and members of the IDF hid explosives in pagers and triggered them to go off in crowded public areas (including shopping centers and funerals).

You claim you're "not on a side", yet you say Israel wounded "2,800 people in Lebanon", while news agencies all pointed out the pagers all belonged to Hezbollah members - which the U.S. has designated a terrorist organization.  Why would someone "not on a side" fail to mention that terrorists held the pagers which exploded?

[GuitarStv]

Furthering the reach of it's state sponsored policy of indiscriminate violence against civilians, Israel has taken credit for the wounding of 2,800 people in Lebanon (https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/17/middleeast/lebanon-hezbollah-pagers-explosions-intl/index.html) - killing at least 12 so far (including two children and four healthcare workers - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2kn10xxldo) via bombs hidden in pagers and walkie talkies.  Moussad and members of the IDF hid explosives in pagers and triggered them to go off in crowded public areas (including shopping centers and funerals).

You claim you're "not on a side", yet you say Israel wounded "2,800 people in Lebanon", while news agencies all pointed out the pagers all belonged to Hezbollah members - which the U.S. has designated a terrorist organization.  Why would someone "not on a side" fail to mention that terrorists held the pagers which exploded?

We already discussed this a little further back in the thread.

Some parts of Hezbollah (the military wing for example) are clearly terrorist and valid military targets.  Some parts or Hezbollah are clearly not (the doctors and nurses who work in Hezbollah hospitals and administer aid to the people of Lebanon, the garbage collectors hired by Hezbollah).  Some parts, like the political wing are grey areas.  Saying that all of Hezbollah are terrorists is like saying that all Israelis are committing genocide.  Just because many in the Israeli government have violated international law and are purposely committing genocide against the Palestinian people, it doesn't mean that all Israelis are fair targets for retaliation does it?

Israel took bombs and put them in pagers and walkie-talkies ordered by Hezbollah.  They then detonated them without any idea where those devices were or who had possession of them.  To be legal, the pager attack needed to discern between military/civilian targets, be proportionate, and to be militarily necessary.  It's difficult to see how it could have met those terms.  Some of the people killed killed by this operation included a 9-year-old girl, an 11-year-old boy, and two medics.  Saying that 'terrorists' held the pagers that exploded would therefore be lying.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Furthering the reach of it's state sponsored policy of indiscriminate violence against civilians, Israel has taken credit for the wounding of 2,800 people in Lebanon (https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/17/middleeast/lebanon-hezbollah-pagers-explosions-intl/index.html) - killing at least 12 so far (including two children and four healthcare workers - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2kn10xxldo) via bombs hidden in pagers and walkie talkies.  Moussad and members of the IDF hid explosives in pagers and triggered them to go off in crowded public areas (including shopping centers and funerals).

You claim you're "not on a side", yet you say Israel wounded "2,800 people in Lebanon", while news agencies all pointed out the pagers all belonged to Hezbollah members - which the U.S. has designated a terrorist organization.  Why would someone "not on a side" fail to mention that terrorists held the pagers which exploded?

We already discussed this a little further back in the thread.

Some parts of Hezbollah (the military wing for example) are clearly terrorist and valid military targets.  Some parts or Hezbollah are clearly not (the doctors and nurses who work in Hezbollah hospitals and administer aid to the people of Lebanon, the garbage collectors hired by Hezbollah).  Some parts, like the political wing are grey areas.  Saying that all of Hezbollah are terrorists is like saying that all Israelis are committing genocide.  Just because many in the Israeli government have violated international law and are purposely committing genocide against the Palestinian people, it doesn't mean that all Israelis are fair targets for retaliation does it?

Israel took bombs and put them in pagers and walkie-talkies ordered by Hezbollah.  They then detonated them without any idea where those devices were or who had possession of them.  To be legal, the pager attack needed to discern between military/civilian targets, be proportionate, and to be militarily necessary.  It's difficult to see how it could have met those terms.  Some of the people killed killed by this operation included a 9-year-old girl, an 11-year-old boy, and two medics.  Saying that 'terrorists' held the pagers that exploded would therefore be lying.

So you're right, and the U.S., Europe, and most news organizations are wrong?
Your refusal to call Hezbollah a terrorist organization shows your bias.

[GuitarStv]

Furthering the reach of it's state sponsored policy of indiscriminate violence against civilians, Israel has taken credit for the wounding of 2,800 people in Lebanon (https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/17/middleeast/lebanon-hezbollah-pagers-explosions-intl/index.html) - killing at least 12 so far (including two children and four healthcare workers - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2kn10xxldo) via bombs hidden in pagers and walkie talkies.  Moussad and members of the IDF hid explosives in pagers and triggered them to go off in crowded public areas (including shopping centers and funerals).

You claim you're "not on a side", yet you say Israel wounded "2,800 people in Lebanon", while news agencies all pointed out the pagers all belonged to Hezbollah members - which the U.S. has designated a terrorist organization.  Why would someone "not on a side" fail to mention that terrorists held the pagers which exploded?

We already discussed this a little further back in the thread.

Some parts of Hezbollah (the military wing for example) are clearly terrorist and valid military targets.  Some parts or Hezbollah are clearly not (the doctors and nurses who work in Hezbollah hospitals and administer aid to the people of Lebanon, the garbage collectors hired by Hezbollah).  Some parts, like the political wing are grey areas.  Saying that all of Hezbollah are terrorists is like saying that all Israelis are committing genocide.  Just because many in the Israeli government have violated international law and are purposely committing genocide against the Palestinian people, it doesn't mean that all Israelis are fair targets for retaliation does it?

Israel took bombs and put them in pagers and walkie-talkies ordered by Hezbollah.  They then detonated them without any idea where those devices were or who had possession of them.  To be legal, the pager attack needed to discern between military/civilian targets, be proportionate, and to be militarily necessary.  It's difficult to see how it could have met those terms.  Some of the people killed killed by this operation included a 9-year-old girl, an 11-year-old boy, and two medics.  Saying that 'terrorists' held the pagers that exploded would therefore be lying.

So you're right, and the U.S., Europe, and most news organizations are wrong?
Your refusal to call Hezbollah a terrorist organization shows your bias.

I don't refuse to call Hezbollah a terrorist organization.  A large number of their members are involved in terrorism.  Their militant wing is largely devoted to terrorism.  Certainly it's a terrorist organization.  The doctors hired by Hezbollah working in civilian hospitals are not working/acting as terrorists though.  The garbage men hired by Hezbollah picking up trash are not terrorists either.  To lump them all together is like lumping together all Israelis with the Israeli 'settlers' in the West Bank who are committing ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in order to steal their land and property.  Do the settlers have full backing of the Israeli government?  Yes.  Do they target civilians for attacks and death?  Yes.  Are their actions intended to strike fear in the hearts of Palestinian civilians?  Yes.  Does that mean that the government of Israel is involved in state sanctioned terror?  Yes.  Does that mean all Israelis involved in the government or military are fair military targets?  Nope.  If I accept your logic that the civilian non-terrorist wing of Hezbollah is fair game for military attack, then I have to accept that all Israelis under the age of 40 (who are technically military reservists) are fair game for military attack.  I just can't do that, it's not a position I support.

The pager attacks committed by Israel didn't discriminate between people who were terrorists and civilians.  They just targeted anyone who might be associated with or around members of Hezbollah.  So again, saying that 'terrorists' held the pagers that exploded would therefore be lying.

[Michael in ABQ]

Israel finally launched their anticipated retaliatory attack on Iran.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cn4v67j88e0t

Initial targets in Tehran with at least five explosions reported including the headquarters of the IRGC.

[dividendman]

Israel finally launched their anticipated retaliatory attack on Iran.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cn4v67j88e0t

Initial targets in Tehran with at least five explosions reported including the headquarters of the IRGC.

Hrm, IRGC headquarters is probably empty at 4am Iranian time.

[ATtiny85]

Israel finally launched their anticipated retaliatory attack on Iran.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cn4v67j88e0t

Initial targets in Tehran with at least five explosions reported including the headquarters of the IRGC.

Hrm, IRGC headquarters is probably empty at 4am Iranian time.

That sounds familiar.

https://youtu.be/9De2fNw3Q-w?feature=shared

[GuitarStv]

Human Rights Watch has been drawing attention to the deliberate demolition of civilian homes and infrastructure by the IDF in Gaza with the apparent goal of making displacement of Palestinian civilians permanent.  So far, 1.9 million Palestinian civilians (90% of the total population) have been displaced by the Israeli invasion.  Estimates now are above 50,000 for people directly killed by Israeli attack and unknown (but expected to me much higher) for the total number who have died of hunger, lack of clean water, and lack of medical facilities - all of which have been denied to Palestinian civilians by Israel.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/human-rights-watch-gaza-displacement-1.7383031


Seems likely that these issues and abuses will substantially accelerate as Trump comes into office.  Trump is quite popular among the Israeli military, as you can see in this video of an Israeli soldier celebrating his win by indiscriminately firing a grenade launcher into Gaza:  https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uYuoJ8uugWA?feature=share.  The comfort that the soldier felt in posting the video should give you an idea as to how likely he is to be punished for his terrorist actions, and how seriously the Israeli military takes the crime committed.

[simonsez]

Human Rights Watch has been drawing attention to the deliberate demolition of civilian homes and infrastructure by the IDF in Gaza with the apparent goal of making displacement of Palestinian civilians permanent.  So far, 1.9 million Palestinian civilians (90% of the total population) have been displaced by the Israeli invasion.  Estimates now are above 50,000 for people directly killed by Israeli attack and unknown (but expected to me much higher) for the total number who have died of hunger, lack of clean water, and lack of medical facilities - all of which have been denied to Palestinian civilians by Israel.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/human-rights-watch-gaza-displacement-1.7383031


Seems likely that these issues and abuses will substantially accelerate as Trump comes into office.  Trump is quite popular among the Israeli military, as you can see in this video of an Israeli soldier celebrating his win by indiscriminately firing a grenade launcher into Gaza:  https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uYuoJ8uugWA?feature=share.  The comfort that the soldier felt in posting the video should give you an idea as to how likely he is to be punished for his terrorist actions, and how seriously the Israeli military takes the crime committed.

I'm also interested and terrified to see what will happen in 2025 and beyond in this part of the world.  What are fair markers to see if US policy with respect to Israel and Palestine have truly accelerated, stayed about the same, or decreased during Trump's 2nd term?

Like, if 1.9 million Palestinians have been displaced and over 50,000 killed in 13 months and 1 week since October 7th and you assert that issues and abuses will substantially accelerate under Trump's 2nd term - do you mean that these rates of numbers will dramatically go up?  For example, let's hypothetically say from now until Trump is sworn in that there are 0 more displacements and deaths, call it 15 months in total.  You are guessing that after 15 months of Trump's 2nd term that there will be MORE than 1.9 million Palestinian displacements and MORE than 50,000 killed?  There are only so many Palestinians living in a given area to begin with so maybe the displacement rate is not a great one to try and track with a basic rate of change and make comparisons at different points in time.  What metric(s) would you use with respect to displaced Palestinians during Trump's 2nd term to know if American policy did indeed ratchet up, was the same, or decreased?  Is measuring Palestinian deaths over a given period a fair way to look and see how aggressive US policies have been or would you look at some other indicator?  Number of American troops in the area over a given timeframe (a quick search shows conflicting numbers, I see 43,000 in the entire Middle East and another source saying 100 extra US military personnel sent to operate some specialty equipment)?  $ spent by the US in the area over a given timeframe (AP lists $17.9 billion spent on Israel by the US after 12 months)?

I don't agree or disagree with your assertion as I simply do not know what the future holds.  But it would be nice to be able to look back somewhat objectively and establish agreed upon parameters and get our facts straight about what effect the Trump administration will have had on the rate of change with regard to Palestinians and the effect of US military. 

[waltworks]

My guess would be Israel officially annexes the West Bank and maybe northern Gaza as well. The new administration will back them up on that I bet, as crazy as it sounds.

-W

[GuitarStv]

My guess would be Israel officially annexes the West Bank and maybe northern Gaza as well. The new administration will back them up on that I bet, as crazy as it sounds.

-W

It is certain that Israeli settlers will significantly increase their theft of land in the West Bank.  Trump has massively emboldened the settlers and Israeli right.  If Israel annexed it that would involve either a clear government sponsored ethnic cleansing, or granting some form of human rights to the Palestinians living there.  I think both are less desirable than the current state of apartheid, where Israel has full control of the area and settlers can take land and attack Palestinians with impunity, but there's a veneer of plausible deniability for Israeli politicians.  But it's entirely possible they become so emboldened that they simply annex the whole thing too.

Gaza is a different situation.  60% of the buildings (https://www.npr.org/2024/10/09/g-s1-27175/israel-hamas-war-gaza-map), 70% of the orchards, and 68% of the roads have been destroyed by Israel so far (at least that was the count as of October 10th this year).  I don't know if the plan is to make the whole area unlivable to drive the Palestinians out of their homeland so that Israel can take over completely, or what but it looks pretty bleak . . . and the longer the Israeli military remains there the worse it will continue to get.

Then there's the occupation of Lebanon (more than a million people and counting displaced) and the offensive against Iran.  Trump hates the Iranians (remember when he reneged on the Iran nuclear deal even though Iran was abiding by the agreement?).  I don't know if it's possible to quantify what impact Trump's presidency will have on the hard right militant Israeli government, but it seems likely it will embolden rather than reign in action.

[GuitarStv]

It's official . . . the Israeli policy of starvation of Palestinian civilians in Gaza is yielding the expected results:

https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/IPC_FRC_Alert_Gaza_Nov2024.pdf

It may not be necessary for Israel to drive the Palestinians from Gaza if they are allowed to continue to implement this more final solution.

[ChpBstrd]

It's official . . . the Israeli policy of starvation of Palestinian civilians in Gaza is yielding the expected results:

https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/IPC_FRC_Alert_Gaza_Nov2024.pdf

It may not be necessary for Israel to drive the Palestinians from Gaza if they are allowed to continue to implement this more final solution.

The Trump administration and their evangelical base will look the other way. Their ideas of ethics will allow them to sleep just fine at night.

The question is whether Egypt, Turkyie, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia will continue to cooperate toward peace in the Middle East, or if the Gaza genocide will break the alliance between the Muslim states and the U.S. It could simply become a political impossibility to continue hosting U.S. bases or participating in trade with regimes committing genocide against the Palestinians.

Russia (led by a fascist) might be happy to deepen relations with the Arab countries, and might lead the way with some sort of proposal for peaceful relations with Iran. If that could be arranged, Islamic autocracies would be freed to bend to the popular will and turn against the U.S. and Israel. Turkyie is the most significant of these, because they could become a dissenter in NATO or stop supplying Ukraine.

The next plays for Russia are fairly obvious, and the political influence, good will, and leverage the U.S. will give up for the sake of not criticizing or attempting to block Netanyahu's genocide is on par with what major wars were fought to achieve.

If the Arab countries fail to abandon the U.S. for fear of Iran, the alternative might be another Arab Spring, more internal insurgencies, and even worse regional destabilization.

[GuitarStv]

Reports continue to come out describing Israel's deliberate and continuing ethnic cleansing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza.  HRW has released an in-depth look at what the illegal Israeli policy of water deprivation has caused:  https://www.hrw.org/report/2024/12/19/extermination-and-acts-genocide/israel-deliberately-depriving-palestinians-gaza


I'm becoming more and more convinced that after exterminating the Palestinians living there, full control of Gaza is Israel's endgame objective.

[HPstache]

It's official . . . the Israeli policy of starvation of Palestinian civilians in Gaza is yielding the expected results:

https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/IPC_FRC_Alert_Gaza_Nov2024.pdf

It may not be necessary for Israel to drive the Palestinians from Gaza if they are allowed to continue to implement this more final solution.

The Trump administration and their evangelical base will look the other way. Their ideas of ethics will allow them to sleep just fine at night.

Who the hell is President right now?

[ChpBstrd]

It's official . . . the Israeli policy of starvation of Palestinian civilians in Gaza is yielding the expected results:

https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/IPC_FRC_Alert_Gaza_Nov2024.pdf

It may not be necessary for Israel to drive the Palestinians from Gaza if they are allowed to continue to implement this more final solution.

The Trump administration and their evangelical base will look the other way. Their ideas of ethics will allow them to sleep just fine at night.

Who the hell is President right now?

A politically weakened pragmatist who at least drew some red lines in the sand for Netanyahu to contemplate.

[GuitarStv]

It's official . . . the Israeli policy of starvation of Palestinian civilians in Gaza is yielding the expected results:

https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/IPC_FRC_Alert_Gaza_Nov2024.pdf

It may not be necessary for Israel to drive the Palestinians from Gaza if they are allowed to continue to implement this more final solution.

The Trump administration and their evangelical base will look the other way. Their ideas of ethics will allow them to sleep just fine at night.

Who the hell is President right now?

A politically weakened pragmatist who at least drew some red lines in the sand for Netanyahu to contemplate.

Nah, it's Elon Musk.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I'm becoming more and more convinced that after exterminating the Palestinians living there, full control of Gaza is Israel's endgame objective.

Disagree that killing 1.5% of a population is "exterminating" them.

[GuitarStv]

I'm becoming more and more convinced that after exterminating the Palestinians living there, full control of Gaza is Israel's endgame objective.

Disagree that killing 1.5% of a population is "exterminating" them.

Given that 0.75% of the population in Germany just before the second world war was Jewish, I bet that some folks in Israel would disagree with your take on the matter.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I'm becoming more and more convinced that after exterminating the Palestinians living there, full control of Gaza is Israel's endgame objective.

Disagree that killing 1.5% of a population is "exterminating" them.

Given that 0.75% of the population in Germany just before the second world war was Jewish, I bet that some folks in Israel would disagree with your take on the matter.

You think the Holocaust was about "the population in Germany"?  Were Nazis killed inside Germany part of the Holocaust?

[ATtiny85]

I'm becoming more and more convinced that after exterminating the Palestinians living there, full control of Gaza is Israel's endgame objective.

Disagree that killing 1.5% of a population is "exterminating" them.

Given that 0.75% of the population in Germany just before the second world war was Jewish, I bet that some folks in Israel would disagree with your take on the matter.

You think the Holocaust was about "the population in Germany"?  Were Nazis killed inside Germany part of the Holocaust?

Say what? He said nothing even remotely like that.

[GuitarStv]

I'm becoming more and more convinced that after exterminating the Palestinians living there, full control of Gaza is Israel's endgame objective.

Disagree that killing 1.5% of a population is "exterminating" them.

Given that 0.75% of the population in Germany just before the second world war was Jewish, I bet that some folks in Israel would disagree with your take on the matter.

You think the Holocaust was about "the population in Germany"?  Were Nazis killed inside Germany part of the Holocaust?

No.  I was trying to say that exterminating a group of people who live in an area is extermination . . . whether or not they make up most of the population or not.  The Nazis exterminated Jewish people in Germany.  That Jewish people lived/survived in other places in the world doesn't negate this fact.

FWIW, the claim initially made is just outright wrong.  There are about 14.3 million Palestinians in the world.  About 3.19 million live in the West Bank, and 2.17 million in Palestine.  (https://www.pcbs.gov.ps/portals/_pcbs/PressRelease/Press_En_InterPopDay2022E.pdf).  2.17/14.3 is roughly 15%, not 1.5.  But that is irrelevant.

Exterminate means to kill/drive out completely.  I'd argue that that still appears to be Israel's goal - extermination of the Palestinians living in Gaza.  Your initial comment appears (in the way I read it) to argue that this is OK because some Palestinians will survive in other places in the world.

[Samuel]

Pretty sure the math being done is: 45,000 (Hamas's figure for Gazans killed, which includes both Hamas militants and civilians) / 2,150,000 (population of Gaza) = ~ 2% of the population killed. 

Plus there have also been 50,000+ births in Gaza since the war started so it's actually possible there are more Gazans alive today than on October 7th (although slightly fewer in Gaza itself, as 100-200k were able to leave).  (EDIT: Yeah, that was a poorly considered statement)

Seems a little difficult to argue extermination is the goal if that's the best they can do after 14 months of brutal war.

[Kris]

Some of the comments here are turning my stomach.

[GuitarStv]

Pretty sure the math being done is: 45,000 (Hamas's figure for Gazans killed, which includes both Hamas militants and civilians) / 2,150,000 (population of Gaza) = ~ 2% of the population killed. 

Plus there have also been 50,000+ births in Gaza since the war started so it's actually possible there are more Gazans alive today than on October 7th (although slightly fewer in Gaza itself, as 100-200k were able to leave).

Seems a little difficult to argue extermination is the goal if that's the best they can do after 14 months of brutal war.

The Gaza Health Ministry's reporting of casualties have been found to be generally accurate (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/27/un-says-gaza-health-ministry-death-tolls-in-previous-wars, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/24/israel-hamas-war-live-fuel-shortfall-could-force-un-to-halt-work-in-gaza-2, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/24/gaza-death-toll-palestinian-health-ministry/) but do have some problems with them when considering the dead from this conflict.

These numbers only count direct deaths of Palestinians (those who were shot, died of shrapnel, bomb/explosion, etc.) verified by doctors.  They do not count the tens of thousands of people who have gone missing since the beginning of the war (20,000+ children alone reported missing by June this year - https://time.com/6992508/gaza-children-save-missing-famine/).  They do not count deaths by starvation (estimated at more than 60,000 back in October - https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/latest/how-year-war-has-devastated-gazas-civilian-infrastructure.  They do not count deaths by thirst.  They do not count deaths by preventable disease (caused by destruction of sanitation facilities, lack of clean water, destruction of hospitals and medical centers, prevention of medical aid from coming into the country).  It doesn't include those who have died of exposure (remember that more than 2/3rds of all buildings in Gaza have been destroyed or damaged in this conflict - https://unitar.org/about/news-stories/press/66percent-total-structures-gaza-strip-have-sustained-damage-unosats-analysis-reveals).  Because fewer than half of Gaza's hospitals remain functional (https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/latest/how-year-war-has-devastated-gazas-civilian-infrastructure) and those that remain functional are running well below capacity, this count (which depends upon doctors to verify the death and cause of death) is likely becoming a more and more significant undercount as fewer and fewer people are able to make it to medical centers.  You also mention the 50,000 children born in Gaza since the start of the war.  How well do you think those infants are doing given that the whole population of the Gaza strip is currently starving, does not have access to enough water each day to survive, and has virtually no medical care?  Remember that none of these deaths would be considered casualties of war from the health ministry and be in the 45,000 figure you're referencing.

It seems that dividing the number reported by the Gaza Health Ministry by the population of Gaza is certain to produce a radical undercount of the number of dead.

As to the Israeli extermination of Palestinian civilians in Gaza . . . it wasn't exactly a secret plan.  Israel's government has been vocal about the desire to do this:

"We are imposing a complete siege on the city of Gaza.  There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel, everything is closed.  We are fighting human animals." - Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant

"Gaza won’t return to what it was before. We will eliminate everything." - Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant

"There are no innocent civilians in Gaza," - Israeli President Isaac Herzog

"One of the options is to drop an atomic bomb on Gaza." - Amichai Eliyahu, Israeli Minister of Heritage

"Those are animals, they have no right to exist. I am not debating they way it will happen, but they need to be exterminated," - Yoav Kisch, Israeli Minister of Education

"Bring down buildings!! Bomb without distinction!! Stop with this impotence. You have ability. There is worldwide legitimacy! Flatten Gaza. Without mercy! This time, there is no room for mercy!" - Revital Gottlieb member of the Israeli Knesset and member of Benjamin Netanyahu's party

"As long as Hamas does not release the hostages it is holding - the only thing that needs to
enter Gaza is hundreds of tons of explosives by the Air Force, and not an ounce of
humanitarian aid." - Itamar Ben-Gvir , Israeli Minister of National Security

"No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral" - Israeli Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich

[Samuel]

That Gaza is an absolute nightmare right now is a given. I can barely conceive of the suffering happening there and fervently hope it can be ended soon, ideally in a way that doesn't just set Hamas up to re-entrench and attack again in a few years as is their established pattern and avowed goal. That would be such a waste.

I don't really know why what I consider to be misapplications of the terms "genocide" and "extermination" in regards to Israel bother me so much (and so can lead me to be uncharacteristically strident in ways I quickly regret). Maybe because it's just such an inversion of what I perceive as clear reality, or maybe because some use it as a cynical media strategy that treats much too lightly what should be very solemn words.

I've actually been on both sides of this issue. 20 years ago it seemed obvious to me that Israel was the bad guy. After learning more of the history and experiencing more of human nature I no longer think that. When I look at Israel I see a fundamentally decent state and people grappling with a devilishly difficult problem with very few good options. Since they're never going to annihilate the Palestinians nor pack up and dissolve the state of Israel we're seemingly stuck forever with this festering wound that can't heal. We're certainly not getting any durable peace until the tactics of murder and martyrdom are abandoned. Or at the very least minimized and marginalized instead of glorified and rewarded. It's heartbreaking to think of the peaceful co-prosperity that could come about if the pragmatists and moderates in the understandably aggrieved and traumatized Palestinian population were allowed to weigh in without fearing being labeled as "collaborators" and killed by Iranian backed Jihadi assholes.

Israel is not blameless by any means and should be answerable for when they cross into being cavalier about Palestinian lives (which I don't disagree they sometimes are). But I just don't see that as the primary story here when Hamas (et all) works so hard to engineer situations that mandate tragic civilian death and suffering. Their primary strategy is to put Israel in difficult positions where they have to (imperfectly, as with all human endeavors) make terrible calculations. We probably differ greatly on where moral culpability falls in those situations. I once read a piece with the line "Hamas spends the lives of Palestinian civilians as ammunition in an information war" and it's been stuck in my head ever since. It really explains so much about this war.