Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

[Flavour]

There were thousands of Hamas fighters who entered Israel on Oct 7. It is not inconceivable that someone had sensitive info on a USB stick on them. But al qaeda stuff in English does sound suspicious/fake as fuck.

 

[Ax^]

hmm without calling anyone out in person

they shoot , killed and decapitated babies .. jesus that is fucking awful


in response they cut off water, power. fuel to 2.2 million people and started a bombing campaign that has killed over 4000 people and it's just going to keep getting worse
that's equally fucking awful but the international community should not be allowing blood to follow blood.

just a madness position

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't know what point you think I was making. The question was asked - a reasonable enough enquiry - what I (and others) thought of the proposition that by being on settlers land you become a legitimate target.

I strongly disagree, and pointed out that this justification could be applied to anyone. It was a "where would you draw the line?" point.

You can disagree with me on that, but when I said it I was not saying anything at all about the situation of the Palestinians. That's a different question. I was not making any parallel with the experience of 70 years of occupation and ethnic cleansing. I was saying don't target civilians. Regardless of where they are or where they live.

Thanks for the clarification, but a post saying nothing more than 'we are all on settlers' land' didn't make the point you think it did, not in this context. This is a thread about the Palestinians.

I don't agree, btw. There is a qualitative difference between live injustices such as the Palestinian displacement and historical injustices that barely survive in the collective memory. There's no line to be drawn between the two because they don't exist on a continuum.

 

[danny la rouge]

Thanks for the clarification, but a post saying nothing more than 'we are all on settlers' land' didn't make the point you think it did, not in this context. This is a thread about the Palestinians.

I don't agree, btw. There is a qualitative difference between live injustices such as the Palestinian displacement and historical injustices that barely survive in the collective memory. There's no line to be drawn between the two because they don't exist on a continuum.

I’m sorry, you think it makes a difference to your opinion on the statement: “nobody on settlers land is an innocent civilian”? Because that’s what I was specifically addressing.

I agree with this. But isn’t one argument (beheaded babies aside) that nobody on settlers land is an innocent civilian?

Because I suspect that you are once again assuming I said something I didn’t. So can I ask you, what is your answer to Magnus’s question?

 

[krtek a houby]

I managed to find articles before commenting, not sure why you didn’t bother. Lots of people seem very keen to minimise these terrorists’ terror, so i expect that’s why you jumped in.

Nobody is minimising Netanyahu and IDF terrorism.

 

[strung out]

I'm not sure that some of the people on here who were so dismissive of the possibility of there being decapitated babies or that Hamas might have hit their own people with a faulty rocket should be quite so sure about whether or not Hamas terrorists might have had a USB stick with some dodgy documents on to be honest...

 

[WhyLikeThis]

I'm not sure that some of the people on here who were so dismissive of the possibility of there being decapitated babies or that Hamas might have hit their own people with a faulty rocket should be quite so sure about whether or not Hamas terrorists might have had a USB stick with some dodgy documents on to be honest...

Christ on a bike. Try using some punctuation.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I’m sorry, you think it makes a difference to your opinion on the statement: “nobody on settlers land is an innocent civilian”? Because that’s what I was specifically addressing.


Because I suspect that you are once again assuming I said something I didn’t. So can I ask you, what is your answer to Magnus’s question?

I don't think so. You think there is a continuum here and 'we are all on settlers' land'. I don't think there is, and in the context of Israel/Palestine, I think that's a facile point to make.

As to what responsibilities those who have been displaced should have towards those who have displaced them, and who is entitled to tell them of those responsibilities, that's a hard question. Where the displacement is still ongoing, such as on the West Bank, all children are innocent but the adults clearly are not. Where the displacement is historical but within living memory and those displaced are a few kilometres down the road behind a fence, I don't know. Binary innocent/guilty questions don't seem helpful. We're in areas of grey. What level of behaviour should those displaced be expected to maintain towards those who displaced them and who are inflicting continual violence on them?

 

[Knotted]

Absolute state of that.

Just watching the news of mothers and babies being taken hostage by masked men with guns. Babies. Elderly people in need of medication. Women being dragged around by there hair and who knows what else. And no news on these hostages. And of course we know there was indescriminate murder too.

And you're talking of "amazing achievement" and "simple joy". Something is seriously wrong with you.

I underestimated that side of it on the day. I apologise for that.

 

[danny la rouge]

I don't think so. You think there is a continuum here and 'we are all on settlers' land'. I don't think there is, and in the context of Israel/Palestine, I think that's a facile point to make.

As to what responsibilities those who have been displaced should have towards those who have displaced them, and who is entitled to tell them of those responsibilities, that's a hard question. Where the displacement is still ongoing, such as on the West Bank, all children are innocent but the adults clearly are not. Where the displacement is historical but within living memory and those displaced are a few kilometres down the road behind a fence, I don't know. Binary innocent/guilty questions don't seem helpful. We're in areas of grey. What level of behaviour should those displaced be expected to maintain towards those who displaced them and who are inflicting continual violence on them?

Do you agree with the proposition that “nobody on settlers land is an innocent civilian”?

 

[danny la rouge]

I underestimated that side of it on the day. I apologise for that.

What amount of “that side of it” would have been appropriate for the reaction you expressed on the day?

 

[The39thStep]

Lengthy but nevertheless very engaging piece by Adam Shatz in the London Review of Books

Adam Shatz · Vengeful Pathologies · LRB 20 October 2023

The inescapable truth is that Israel cannot extinguish Palestinian resistance by violence, any more than the...

www.lrb.co.uk

 

[Knotted]

What amount of “that side of it” would have been appropriate for the reaction you expressed on the day?

OK my reaction was wrong and too motivated by opposition to the general mood on here which I still find deeply disappointing. My current position is articulated in post 4591.

 

[strung out]

Christ on a bike. Try using some punctuation.

For the hard of thinking, I mean that those who got the decapitated babies and hospital strike stuff wrong, should think twice about dismissing out of hand the possibility that some of the Hamas terrorists might have had some dodgy documents on a USB stick.

 

[danny la rouge]

For the hard of thinking, I mean that those who got the decapitated babies and hospital strike stuff wrong, should think twice about dismissing out of hand the possibility that some of the Hamas terrorists might have had some dodgy documents on a USB stick.

It was readable the first time.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Do you agree with the proposition that “nobody on settlers land is an innocent civilian”?

How do you think the Palestinian refugees now penned in in Gaza should consider the people living where their villages and farms once were?

You're seeking moral absolutes in a grey and murky area. In the sense that they are living on stolen land and those it was stolen from want it back, they are not innocent. In the sense that many of them were born there, know no different and have nowhere else to go, they are innocent.

Moshe Dayan didn't think the settlers were innocents. He demanded that they should not be.

We are a generation of settlers, and without the steel helmet and gun barrel, we shall not be able to plant a tree or build a house.

The Palestinians' continued existence was an extremely inconvenient truth 70 years ago, and it is an extremely inconvenient truth today. But then Dayan expected Palestinians to hate Israelis. He thought it inevitable and perpetual. How do we change that?

Dayan again:

Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist, not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushu'a in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.

 

[danny la rouge]

How do you think the Palestinian refugees now penned in in Gaza should consider the people living where their villages and farms once were?

You're seeking moral absolutes in a grey and murky area. In the sense that they are living on stolen land and those it was stolen from want it back, they are not innocent. In the sense that many of them were born there, know no different and have nowhere else to go, they are innocent.

Moshe Dayan didn't think the settlers were innocents. He demanded that they should not be.



The Palestinians' continued existence was an extremely inconvenient truth 70 years ago, and it is an extremely inconvenient truth today. But then Dayan expected Palestinians to hate Israelis. He thought it inevitable and perpetual. How do we change that?

So you’re not going to answer whether you think civilians are legitimate targets? It’s complicated.

It’s not complicated. Civilians are not legitimate targets.

 

[Gramsci]

I don't know what point you think I was making. The question was asked - a reasonable enough enquiry - what I (and others) thought of the proposition that by being on settlers land you become a legitimate target.

I strongly disagree, and pointed out that this justification could be applied to anyone. It was a "where would you draw the line?" point.

You can disagree with me on that, but when I said it I was not saying anything at all about the situation of the Palestinians. That's a different question. I was not making any parallel with the experience of 70 years of occupation and ethnic cleansing. I was saying don't target civilians. Regardless of where they are or where they live.

Your on a thread about Palestinians. So anything you post will be related to that.

On a real world level. Not political abstractions. The line between civilians and military is blurred.

"where would you draw the line"

Back in the real world the Israeli state are upping the violence in the West Bank. There have been posts on this by me and others.

Btselem have been covering this. Among others

Here is what they say about settlers:

It may appear as though settlers show up at Palestinian communities and start attacking them on their own initiative. In fact, these actions are part of Israel’s well-known, longstanding policy to make life so miserable for dozens of Palestinian communities in the West Bank that the residents eventually leave, seemingly of their own accord. Israel then proceeds to take over the land and use it for its own purposes – mainly building and expanding settlements. This policy has radically intensified under the current government, whose members fully support and even encourage the violent attacks.

https://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20231019_under_cover_of_gaza_fighting_settlers_working_to_fulfil_state_goal_of_judaizing_area_c

This unlawful policy constitutes forcible transfer of residents in an occupied territory. Such transfer is prohibited under any circumstance by international law, which Israel is obligated – and has undertaken – to respect. The fact that soldiers are not physically forcing residents out of their homes is irrelevant: creating a coercive environment that leaves residents no choice but to forsake their homes is enough.

This isnt secret. Google and it comes up.

The settlers are civilians. But in the context of a settler colonial state they are effectively part of its apparatus to to further ethnic cleansing.

Are they civilians - yes. Are they legitimate targets for Palestinians? Yes For reasons of justified self defence.

Sorry but in the case of the real world situation of Palestinian people they have been and are being ethnically cleansed from their land. In a real sense losing their homes. This isnt some abstract political argument. Whether its from Isreali bombing or civilian settler violence it is the same effect losing homes and lives.

So in a war of the colonised fighting the coloniser its not so simple as to simply pronounce what you have said. The distinction between regular military and civilian is a line to be drawn. But its not a hard distinction.

 

[Raheem]

Are they civilians - yes. Are they legitimate targets for Palestinians? Yes For reasons of justified self defence.

So civilian populations can be legitimate targets?

 

[Gramsci]

So civilian populations can be legitimate targets?

Please read my post.

 

[Raheem]

Please read my post.

I read your post. You appear to be saying that civilian populations can be legitimately targeted with violence.

 

[Gramsci]

I read your post. You appear to be saying that civilian populations can be legitimately targeted with violence.

You haven't read it very well then. Which bit don't you get?

 

[strung out]

Are they civilians - yes. Are they legitimate targets for Palestinians? Yes For reasons of justified self defence.

Glad we’ve finally got someone admitting that actually it was completely fine that those 1,400 dead Israelis were executed by Hamas.

 

[Raheem]

You haven't read it very well then. Which bit don't you get?

The bit where you said Israeli settlers are civilians, then that they are legitimate targets, then making out like you think something has been misunderstood.

It's an "all men are mortal" thing, isn't it? They can be civilians, as a group, or they can be legitimate targets, but the Venn diagram surely doesn't allow them to be both, unless it is sometimes legitimate to target civilians.

 

[Gramsci]

Glad we’ve finally got someone admitting that actually it was completely fine that those 1,400 dead Israelis were executed by Hamas.

I did not say that at all.

 

[strung out]

I did not say that at all.

You said they were legitimate targets for Palestinians.

 

[PTK]

Your on a thread about Palestinians. So anything you post will be related to that.

On a real world level. Not political abstractions. The line between civilians and military is blurred.

"where would you draw the line"

Back in the real world the Israeli state are upping the violence in the West Bank. There have been posts on this by me and others.

Btselem have been covering this. Among others

Here is what they say about settlers:

https://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20231019_under_cover_of_gaza_fighting_settlers_working_to_fulfil_state_goal_of_judaizing_area_c

This isnt secret. Google and it comes up.

The settlers are civilians. But in the context of a settler colonial state they are effectively part of its apparatus to to further ethnic cleansing.

Are they civilians - yes. Are they legitimate targets for Palestinians? Yes For reasons of justified self defence.

Sorry but in the case of the real world situation of Palestinian people they have been and are being ethnically cleansed from their land. In a real sense losing their homes. This isnt some abstract political argument. Whether its from Isreali bombing or civilian settler violence it is the same effect losing homes and lives.

So in a war of the colonised fighting the coloniser its not so simple as to simply pronounce what you have said. The distinction between regular military and civilian is a line to be drawn. But its not a hard distinction.

What is a settler?
Palestinain Arabs were expelled from all over what is now the State of Israel, in 1948. Are they people who have been born in these towns settlers?

 

[Gramsci]

The bit where you said Israeli settlers are civilians, then that they are legitimate targets, then making out like you think something has been misunderstood.

I was talking about - if you read my post- the settler violence in West Bank.

This has being going on for years.

Nor was I saying all Israelis are a target.

Jesus I've been posting all this info up.

Palestine/ Israel isn't the UK. If your a Palestinian farmer being attacked by armed settlers its pointless complaining to the authorities.

What Im saying is that in specific circumstances the idea that one can look at the conflict and distinguish between civilians and regular military is an abstraction.

Settler violence in West Bank - particularly area C is well documented. In purist terms they are civilians. In practice they are acting like a para military group acting with impunity due to the state unofficially condoning their actions.

 

[PTK]

I was talking about - if you read my post- the settler violence in West Bank.

This has being going on for years.

Nor was I saying all Israelis are a target.

Jesus I've been posting all this info up.

Palestine/ Israel isn't the UK. If your a Palestinian farmer being attacked by armed settlers its pointless complaining to the authorities.

What Im saying is that in specific circumstances the idea that one can look at the conflict and distinguish between civilians and regular military is an abstraction.

Settler violence in West Bank - particularly area C is well documented. In purist terms they are civilians. In practice they are acting like a para military group acting with impunity due to the state unofficially condoning their actions.

There is a problem in that the term "settler" is also applied by some people to civilians living within the State of Israel. Al Jazeera referred to some of the towns near the Gaza Strip as "illegal settlements". This is the source of the misunderstanding of what you wrote, I believe.

 

[Gramsci]

There is a problem in that the term "settler" is also applied by some people to civilians living within the State of Israel. Al Jazeera referred to some of the towns near the Gaza Strip as "illegal settlements". This is the source of the misunderstanding of what you wrote, I believe.

Im trying to move the conversation away from abstractions.

One thing about the "What about" argument is that it lets whats happening now to continue.

So I ask you if you lived in an area where armed people were threatening you to leave would not you be justified in taking up arms to resist them? Even if that meant you were killing civilians? When if you complain to the authorities there is a good chance they will arrest you for defending your home. Or even stand by and watch whilst these "civilians" were threatening your family. Because that in the real world now is whats happening. And has been happening whilst international community stood by

Im talking about area C of the West Bank.