Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Doomblade187]

The raid on Al-Aqsa mosque wounded over 215 people, and broke up a sit-in protest. A few rocks doesn't justify rubber bullets, that much is clear. The excessive force used by riot police, as well as several other incidents and a planned nationalist march, was part of what kicked off the latest round of violence. One can oppose the Hamas rocket attacks and also oppose police brutality and laws that support ethnic cleansing.

https://news.yahoo.com/dozens-wounded-israeli-forces-raid-100937243.html

[martinuzz]

Wounded: 215. Killed: none. That's basically the definition of non-lethal force. Rocket attacks in response to that is what is excessive, and an act of war.

[Doomblade187]

Wounded: 215. Killed: none. That's basically the definition of non-lethal force. Rocket attacks in response to that is what is excessive, and an act of war.

And yet I explicitly oppose the rocket attacks. Curious. Nonlethal force does not make ethical.

[The_Explorer]

One way to break the status quo and get the US involvement out of the middle east for good...is probably not gonna happen. But what if we let israel be someone else's problem? China for example could have israel and north korea to deal with, and the US wouldn't have to worry about it anymore. And it gives the US a reason to be 100% out of the middle east for good...no reason to be there anyway except to kill people and innocents in the name of fighting "weapons of mass destruction" which was a lie anyway by bush. US could wipe their hands clean and just stop interfering with things over there.

[hector13]

Nobody willingly gives up power and influence.

[nenjin]

That's not how Israeli-American relations work. Israel lobbies over here for support, many Americans identify as Israelis even though they're US citizens, we have deep business ties with Israel for defense and weapons sales, and generations of Americans have been raised to believe that our security and Israel's security are 1:1.

Nobody willingly gives up power and influence.

Even setting that aside, we have to deprogram Americans from believing that if we don't give Israel millions upon millions of dollars a year the entire state will collapse. Conservatives love to bitch about the domestic welfare state while pointedly ignoring the welfare states we're propping up abroad. Israel doesn't need our money or our weapons, but we certainly want their money.

[feelotraveller]

Nobody willingly gives up power and influence.

Which is why we will see America become increasingly more desperate as it struggles with its decline.  Not blow by blow, but in the coming years and decades.

[Maximum Spin]

Nobody willingly gives up power and influence.

Which is why we will see America become increasingly more desperate as it struggles with its decline.  Not blow by blow, but in the coming years and decades.

The idea that America and American global power is in any real decline or desperation is just a right-wing myth.

And yet I explicitly oppose the rocket attacks. Curious. Nonlethal force does not make ethical.

But you think, apparently, that Israel is obligated to just stand there and take it on the chin?
Ultimately, the question is this: If someone tries to stab you, have you got the right to shoot? To me, it's obvious that the answer is yes. A disturbing number of people believe, though, that it wouldn't be "fair". This is, frankly, moronic.

[hector13]

Sure you have the right to defend yourself.

You do not have the right to take out their neighbour in the process. Force has to be proportional.

[Maximum Spin]

You do not have the right to take out their neighbour in the process. Force has to be proportional.

Basically, I just disagree.

Let's continue the analogy like this: You fire a few shots, one misses and hits a guy down the road. As I see it, the response to this is "Well, it sucks, but shit happens. You had a right to shoot, you did nothing wrong, and it's the would-be stabber's fault for putting you in the position of shooting."

Your response, instead, seems to be to parse whether the shooter shot too many times. I don't care if he shot twice or fifty times. The only proportionate response to attack is the one that stops further attack completely. It takes what it takes.

ETA: I do want to clarify that I do agree that it is better for bystanders to be harmed less. What I do not accept is the relentless parsing of whether this or that harm was avoidable, especially by people who have no idea what it would actually be like to be in the situation.

[Dunamisdeos]

You do not have the right to take out their neighbour in the process. Force has to be proportional.

I agree, but what's going on over there exactly? I'm not sure it's about a right to respond, per se. Are they missing the enemy entirely and blowing up civilians? What other response do they have on hand that eliminates civilian casualties? How SHOULD they be responding to people firing rockets at their populace?
 
More specifically, let's say Hamas fires a rocket at Israel. My understanding is that Hamas routinely parks themselves in areas that contain civilians while doing so. Israel fires rockets back. Civilians die. Do they have another option for retaliation that does a better job of minimizing casualties? What would WE do in their case? Does it put their own military personnel/civilians at risk? I'm legit uneducated about the current specifics, the only details I have are that they both hate each other and claim an ancestral right to the same land.
 
I mean these as literal questions. I was raised with a bias on supporting Israel, for sure. I'm interested to hear more on how they SHOULD fight each other if they are going to fight.

[Doomblade187]

ell, it would stand to reason that since we know rockets are intentionally launched from civilian locations (and I'm very certain it's intentional) that often have little association with the actual terrorist group in question (see the strikes that took out the AP News offices), that maybe indiscriminate destruction of the locations that rockets are launched from may not be the best solution. I'm no military strategist, mind you, but maybe playing into the hand of "bet you won't blow up this civilian house" isn't the best idea.

Edit: to be clear, I specifically view the retaliatory strikes as excessive. Yes, the IDF does warn for evacuation ahead of time to preserve civilian life, which *reduces* civilian casualties, but clearly doesn't fully work. Add to the fact that the evacuation window would give time for Hamas to move their missiles out the way, and preserve their assets. It's not a situation that can be easily solved by bombs.

Edit2: Maximum Spin, that's called *manslaughter*.

[Maximum Spin]

Edit2: Maximum Spin, that's called *manslaughter*.

It is absolutely not. At least in my state, the circumstances described do not meet the statutory definition of manslaughter. You cannot be charged for it, and in fact, in cases where it has happened, that has held true.

[nenjin]

The problem is that Israel is not responding to a military force. They're responding to civilians with weapons. Who hang out around other civilians. Set up on their roofs to launch rockets. They don't form up in official buildings, barracks or muster sites. They pop up and disappear, hide among the non-violent population. Their own internal political groups can't control them. And because Israel has to "be tough", not responding with force is not an option. A government has to at least be seen protecting their own citizens, at the cost of someone else's. They don't have a lot of "good" options from their point of view.

[feelotraveller]

Well a 'good option' would have been to accept the ceasefire that Egypt brokered (and that Hamas agreed to) back on, or around, the 13th.  I'm pretty sure a couple of others like the Russians have also been refused since (on the basis that they must punish... whoever).

Basically it is just Netanyahu siezing on the/any opportunity to cling to power in an attempt to continue to avoid facing the corruption charges against him.