Standing With Israel and Condemning Hamas

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by It's Me!

I wonder if those talks/potential contributed to the planning/execution of this attack.

I saw assertions to this effect almost straight after the initial Hamas attack.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

After two weeks of non-stop bombing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza, so far killing more than five times the number of Israeli civilians killed by Hamas (and just getting started), the very first legislative action of the new crazy right-wing speaker of the House was to bring to the floor the resolution "Standing with Israel as it defends itself against the barbaric war launched by Hamas and other terrorists", and it won almost unanimous support from the whole House.

The full text of H. Res. 771. is now available, and the dissembling starts in the first sentence:

Whereas on October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorists launched a massive, unprovoked war on Israel by air, land, and sea, including firing thousands of rockets;

The "war", such as it is, has been going on for decades. It was not "launched" on October 7th, and it certainly wasn't "unprovoked".

At least they offer condolences for the thousands of dead Palestinians that have resulted from the non-stop bombing campaign of over two weeks now.

Whereas since October 7, 2023, Hamas is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Palestinians;

Oh, I mean hundreds of Palestinians and Hamas is directly responsible for all the deaths resulting from the bombs Israel is dropping. Yeah that makes sense.

[JoeP]

They went right ahead and used the word "unprovoked". OK then.

[LarsMac]

Vote count on that was interesting. A few Dems voted nay, several Dems and Reps show as not voting.

That was as close to unanimous as we can expect to see from this Congress, I think.

Almost nobody wants to be seen as "Anti-Israel."

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by JoeP

They went right ahead and used the word "unprovoked". OK then.

I would say that it was unprovoked in the sense that there was no specific immediately proceeding incident that Hamas was responding to. There ought to be a better word for it.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I would say that it was unprovoked in the sense that there was no specific immediately proceeding incident that Hamas was responding to. There ought to be a better word for it.

But that might require defining "provoked"

[Ari]

Overall Israel understands the optics better. It really doesn't matter the reason, actively hunting down and killing random civilians will always been seen as worse than a missile or bomb hitting a house and killing a family.

Part of Hamas seems to get optics, as part of the point of taking hostages appears to be to treat them well while letting them see the horrible conditions. It's just not going to make a difference after the attack.

[viscousmemories]

It seems that the Internet and cellular service has been cut in Gaza, bombing has intensified, and Israel has said that it is now "expanding its ground incursion", so it may be that the ground war has begun.

Also today:

British lawyers call on government to press for ceasefire in Gaza | Israel-Hamas war | The Guardian

More than 250 British lawyers, including eminent KCs and professors of law, have called on the UK government to press for a ceasefire in Gaza, saying serious breaches of international law are being committed.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Shareholder value tho

Military Contractors Are Framing the Israeli War on Gaza as a Win for Investors

[vremya]

Pick a Side. Pick a Side. Pick a Side. Now.

Heads up - the video has some graphic images

I'm really struggling with this - I can't countenance Hamas shooting up a dance festival or going door to door and slaughtering people, but I can't support Israel's response either. Being told that I'm Islamophobic or Antisemitic if I don't make a statement doesn't help it any.

[JoeP]

I stand with the civilians and condemn the extremists.

[mickthinks]

Here is the late Gerald Kaufman speaking in the House of Commons in 2009:

UK Jewish MP: Israel acting like Nazis in Gaza -...

I hope it helps.

[Ari]

One thing I've been noticing with Palestinian propaganda is that it doesn't paint a great picture beyond the wrongs of Israel. Like telling me that Gaza is mostly children, sure makes Israel sound evil for bombing them, but doesn't make leaving them alone to be ruled by older religious extremists from afar sound all that pleasant either.

[LarsMac]

If both sides are wrong, supporting either makes one just as much in the wrong.

I believe it to be that simple.

[mickthinks]

One of the mistakes many people are being induced to make is to see two sides. There are more than two sides. There's at least three:

• Israel's government and military
• Hammas
• Civilians

I believe the civilians are not wrong. I believe I can support them in good conscience.

[erimir]

Another side is other Arab countries.

Like a huge factor in the conflict is the actions that Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon have taken over time. Not to mention Iran and Saudi Arabia and so on.

There are a lot of Arabs not in Palestine whose positions are based more on an Arab nationalist project than on humanitarian concern for Palestinians.

That's why Palestinian refugees who've lived in Lebanon for decades (or were born there) don't have the same rights as Lebanese citizens, why so many are stateless. Why Egypt won't allow refugees to cross from Gaza, which would be what you'd normally do if you were just concerned about the welfare of children in a war zone.

Because for them that's counterproductive to their goal, which is: victory in returning the whole of Israel-Palestine to Arab control. Refugees might not return, and refugees living productive lives elsewhere aren't as useful as propaganda as people suffering in Gaza.

Which isn't to say that Israeli creating refugees doesn't make them bad! But we don't look at Uyghurs in China and say that for their own good, we're not going to take them in and they have to stay in China to create more pressure on China. None of that exonerates China, but nobody* on here is thinking it's anything but bad when Trump and the GOP say we shouldn't take refugees either.

Anyway, it mostly seems like incompatible religious and nationalist motivations (and basically a conflict between different right-wing factions) are major sticking points, which is why I have a hard time being super sympathetic to either ideological side and particularly the ones who use the conflict for their own purposes rather than really seeking any resolution (so especially groups like the Iranian regime and West Bank settlers who don't really give a shit how it makes things worse for civilians on either side).

*ETA: Sorry, I forgot that Miss Shelby and FX exist. Never mind!

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

One of the mistakes many people are being induced to make is to see two sides. There are more than two sides. There's at least three:

• Israel's government and military
• Hammas
• Civilians

I believe the civilians are not wrong. I believe I can support them in good conscience.

I don't see the "Civilians" as really having the luxury of being a side in the goings-on. They have been, at best, a political football for the "Sides" even long before the establishment of the mandate.

[fragment]

Originally Posted by erimir

Another side is other Arab countries.

How about we don't conflate multiple different countries that have seen many successful and attempted regime changes from civil wars, popular uprisings, political assassinations, etc. over the same time?

[erimir]

If I said Western countries were another side, would you bother making this nitpick about how they're not all the same? I didn't say they were. I even made reference to specific actions from specific countries rather than just saying "they" "they" "they".

We also aren't bothering to say, hey, not all Israelis are the same either. Should I assume that objecting in one case and being silent on the other that you're conflating all Israelis? No, because that would be a bit uncharitable. I expect you're aware that they're not all the same. And not all Palestinians outside Hamas have the same opinions (or presumably, even within Hamas, although I'd expect more unity within the org), and some of them belong to different extremist armed groups, and most don't belong to any, and so on. Not all Arab Israelis are the same either, with some groups such as Bedouins and Druze being significantly more pro-Israel than other Arabs and even some of them serve in the IDF.

I used the example of Lebanon not granting Palestinian refugees the same rights because Lebanon restricts their rights more than Jordan does. Most Palestinian refugees in Jordan are citizens.

Ok, acknowledged they're not all the same. Which is helpfully something I also didn't say.

But regardless, I was meaning back from when the Arab League attacked Israel in 1948 through now. So Jordan's actions have been different from Iraq's since then, ok, but the point is that collectively they've had a big influence on the conflict, and their relations with Israel and Palestine are also important to understanding both sides' behavior.

But yeah, if you want to point out some significant differences in their histories and actions and current policies, that's fine, that's better for a more detailed discussion, but I don't need basic facts like "Jordan and Egypt aren't the same" pointed out to me, especially when it's not even accompanied by any actual information beyond "different countries are different."

[fragment]

Originally Posted by erimir

If I said Western countries were another side, would you bother making this nitpick about how they're not all the same?

Potentially, yes*. At least my own Western country is not exactly in lockstep with the US on this conflict, to the point where I don't think it accurate to say NZ and the US are on the same side with respect to this conflict (this may change as the new Govt takes over). The West wasn't exactly united over this UN resolution, either. The reasons for these differences are notable and worth talking about.

This is despite the way that most Western countries are explicitly intertwined through military alliances, intelligence sharing and close economic agreements, e.g. through NATO, EU, Five Eyes, etc. The Arab League doesn't really come close to that sort of integration, at least in recent decades. Last joint Arab country military action against Israel was 1973, wasn't it? After that was a whole thing with Egypt being suspended from the Arab League for signing a separate peace with Israel, which also lead to one of those assassinations I mentioned.

So no, I don't think it makes sense to call Arab countries a side. Doing so glides over important differences and reduces understanding. Honestly it's far too common for people in Western countries to talk in sweeping generalisations about other parts of the world, and we can do better. There are some commonalities that make sense to discuss, sure, but we should be specific about them rather than calling it "sides". Even Assad and Hezbollah are more on the same side as allies of convenience against common enemies than by having goals that align more broadly.

*With the caveat that there are a great many things I don't comment on, and whether I comment on any given thing has a lot more to do with what's up with me personally on a given day than the topic at hand.

[viscousmemories]

I had a hard time picking sides 3 weeks ago, but now I am firmly on the side of the Palestinian people, especially those in Gaza who are being starved and bombed daily, and the West Bank, who live under martial law.

All religious and nationalist aspirations of the Arabs aside, it is simply indisputable that the once majority Arab population of Palestine were forced out of their homes and off their land and stuffed into Gaza and the West Bank by the Zionist project. Israel has no right to exist there. Even the two-state solution so often suggested would be a huge concession to Israel, though maybe the only realistic option. The only fair solution would be one state with equal rights for all, and massive reparations paid to the Palestinians whose homes were taken from them in 1948.

Regardless of who is in the right it is becoming more obvious every day that as long as Israel continues it's attacks on Gaza the higher the probability of Hezbollah and fighters in Syria and Yemen joining the fight. Obviously it would be a suicide mission for them against Israel and the US, but even if you're someone for whom only Israeli lives matter, this doesn't seem like the best way to prevent more Israeli civilian deaths.

[Ari]

The problem is all the assorted bullshit and festering has meant theres never going to be a solution that makes everyone happy or everything just. Sure the Israelis could be driven from their land that they've lived on for multiple generations now, either given a new state or just left to wander. But that's not going to happen. Sure the Israelis and co could just buy out Palestine, make the people living there richer than they've ever been and allow them to form a new Palestine elsewhere or left to wander. But that's not going to happen either.

It's the problem with 'picking sides' as there's no just side here, no good guys. Even picking civilians is easy from a computer on the other side of the world, but to those in the fight every Israeli citizen is at one point conscripted to the army, and Hamas fighters are suicidal citizens given a day course in firearms. Inside the conflict both sides see everyone as a legitimate target, and don't really care what outsiders think. Sometimes I think people are projecting their views on whatever side they support which shocks liberals a bit when that side acts counter to liberal views.

[viscousmemories]

I completely disagree. Only one side is currently engaged in killings on a massive scale, ethnic cleansing, and forcibly acquiring the land of the other. Even if we pretend this all started on October 7th, only one side is still, right now, racking up civilian kills, depriving 2 million people of food, water, electricity, and medicine, destroying their homes, and very likely positioning itself to steal their land more aggressively than they were already doing before this latest escalation of conflict. There really is no moral ambiguity here now.

UNICEF is calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, unrestricted humanitarian access and immediate and safe release of all abducted children. — UNICEF

Gaza: Thousands of children have been killed in airstrikes over the last three weeks, with many others missing & feared dead.
UN humanitarians warn that millions of children are suffering without basic essentials & face a lifetime of trauma.— United Nations

We need an immediate ceasefire now.

End the indiscriminate bloodshed and the massive attacks on Gaza.

Restore the flow of humanitarian aid.
We call for the protection of civilians and health care facilities on both sides of the conflict, at all times. — Doctors Without Borders

CEASEFIRE NOW!
CEASEFIRE NOW!
CEASEFIRE NOW!
CEASEFIRE NOW!

In the face of unfettered devastation and suffering, humanity must prevail.
Demand a ceasefire by all parties to end civilian suffering.

Act now.— Amnesty International

The number of civilian casualties in #Gaza is staggering.

The limited aid flow is a mere trickle of the growing needs.

Without urgent, unrestricted access at scale, tragedy will continue unfolding before our eyes.

The conflict started on 7 October, the first aid crossing was on 21 October. Since then,
@WHO
has only been able to transport enough supplies for approximately 370,000 people, including for traumatic wound and burn care, and treatment for serious chronic conditions.

The population of Gaza is over 2 million.

We need access, now, to deliver far more health supplies.

We urge safe movement be guaranteed for humanitarian convoys across Gaza - and an immediate humanitarian pause. There’s no time to waste. Every moment matters. — Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Executive Director of the World Health Organization

The US has rejected global calls for a ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinian group Hamas, arguing it is not the "right answer right now". -BBC News

[seebs]

passive-voice.png

[Ari]

Ok, but are we just going to bounce back and forth based on who is currently racking up more kills, If it turns out Hamas tortured and killed all their hostages, do we bounce back to supporting Israel because Hamas is currently killing civilians only to then bounce back to supporting Palestine once Israel strikes back?

Are you now in support of other countries joining in the fight to remove Israel and return the land to Arab rule? Enough to take in and form a new Israel, or enough to be angry when they then start to slaughter civilians?

ETA: I should say that years ago a friend's friend was shot dead by an Israeli sniper while carrying a child, also a friend's friend was killed in the festival attack. So far I've managed to not lose anyone personally, but suffice it to say I'm overall grumpy at the forced pick a side going on.