Late 2023 Israel-Hamas Conflict, Thread 2 of ?

[The Apollonian Systems]

Making a country safe by terrorizing anyone who made the fatal flaw of getting a tattoo...right

A gang tattoo indicating affiliation with a notorious group of murderers and rapists.

Oh, no! Won't somebody please think of the due process rights of the most depraved criminals imaginable who have been crippling Salvadoran society for decades!?

I hate having to coke to the defense of the hypocritical tankie but due process exists for a reason. How long until they start throwing in journalists and critics in prison without due process?

[Neu California]

Gaza starvation could amount to war crime, UN human rights chief tells BBC

[Turenia]

Gaza starvation could amount to war crime, UN human rights chief tells BBC

"Famine is imminent!", again.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

Netanyahu is trading Israel's international reputation just to stay in power a little longer. They will come out of this isolated and untrusted by the world.

[Durius]

Gaza starvation could amount to war crime, UN human rights chief tells BBC

"Famine is still imminent!", again.

Ftfy

[USHALLNOTPASS]

From El Salvador to Israel, truly Arendt’s Boomerang is a weapon of mass destruction.

[USHALLNOTPASS]

Is this really the best you come up with? Discrediting Colombia's position because the government hasn't been able to fix a very complex and structural problem? Maybe in your mind they should be lauded if they take a violent approach and indiscriminate approach like Israel, the Phillipines, or El Salvador. Those are the good governments who imprision and kill innocent civilians just to just out one problem!

It's not the position I am discrediting so much as it is the priorities of the Colombian government, which do not seem to concern the Colombian populace. I would be just as displeased if the Israeli government, during its time of crisis, called out El Salvador's government for its actions when they shared a symbiotic alliance. It merely comes off as hypocritical and lacking proper prioritization.

Arms, the most effective tool against drugs.

What are you going to do, declare a war on drugs?

[Durius]

Is this really the best you come up with? Discrediting Colombia's position because the government hasn't been able to fix a very complex and structural problem? Maybe in your mind they should be lauded if they take a violent approach and indiscriminate approach like Israel, the Phillipines, or El Salvador. Those are the good governments who imprision and kill innocent civilians just to just out one problem!

It's not the position I am discrediting so much as it is the priorities of the Colombian government, which do not seem to concern the Colombian populace. I would be just as displeased if the Israeli government, during its time of crisis, called out El Salvador's government for its actions when they shared a symbiotic alliance. It merely comes off as hypocritical and lacking proper prioritization.

Of course it is the position you are trying to discredit. If Colombia said they were sending help to Israel instead, you wouldn't be criticizing them for caring about international issues. You'd laud it. But since they are taking a position against Israeli actions, you are now trying to find every single piece of dirt to throw against Colombia. We saw this campaign already against South Africa. We saw a similar one, though in smaller degree against Ireland. I can't say it's not effective, but the 'tu quoques' are certainly intellectually dishonest and hopefully they backfire greatly diplomatically.

[Port Carverton]

A gang tattoo indicating affiliation with a notorious group of murderers and rapists.

Oh, no! Won't somebody please think of the due process rights of the most depraved criminals imaginable who have been crippling Salvadoran society for decades!?

I hate having to coke to the defense of the hypocritical tankie but due process exists for a reason. How long until they start throwing in journalists and critics in prison without due process?

Well, journalists wouldn't be that much of a loss to society were they put in jail if I'm being honest

[Durius]

I hate having to coke to the defense of the hypocritical tankie but due process exists for a reason. How long until they start throwing in journalists and critics in prison without due process?

Well, journalists wouldn't be that much of a loss to society were they put in jail if I'm being honest

Yes, they would. Just the act of imprisoning them for being journalists would be a huge loss.

[Port Carverton]

Well, journalists wouldn't be that much of a loss to society were they put in jail if I'm being honest

Yes, they would. Just the act of imprisoning them for being journalists would be a huge loss.

How so? How do journalists improve society in any meaningful way? All the big news companies have done the past few years is lie frequently. We can live without journalists.

[Durius]

Yes, they would. Just the act of imprisoning them for being journalists would be a huge loss.

How so? How do journalists improve society in any meaningful way? All the big news companies have done the past few years is lie frequently. We can live without journalists.

Yes, they do. Independent journalists improve the information flow which is crucial to democracy. Sure, we can live without journalists and restricted flow of inormation. We can also live without freedom. Neither are acceptable ways of living in my opinion.

[Port Carverton]

How so? How do journalists improve society in any meaningful way? All the big news companies have done the past few years is lie frequently. We can live without journalists.

Yes, they do. Independent journalists improve the information flow which is crucial to democracy. Sure, we can live without journalists and restricted flow of inormation. We can also live without freedom. Neither are acceptable ways of living in my opinion.

I personally disagree. I think journos are bought by government or corporate interests and shouldn't be trusted. This applies to 'free thinkers' who support Russia, by the way. A free society would be better without journalists.

[Philistea]

Yes, they do. Independent journalists improve the information flow which is crucial to democracy. Sure, we can live without journalists and restricted flow of inormation. We can also live without freedom. Neither are acceptable ways of living in my opinion.

I personally disagree. I think journos are bought by government or corporate interests and shouldn't be trusted. This applies to 'free thinkers' who support Russia, by the way. A free society would be better without journalists.

How ironic, a New York Times democracy nation is telling me that a free society would be better off without "journos". lmfao

Most if not all mainstream journalists are bought, but free speech and a free press are still essential.

[Durius]

Yes, they do. Independent journalists improve the information flow which is crucial to democracy. Sure, we can live without journalists and restricted flow of inormation. We can also live without freedom. Neither are acceptable ways of living in my opinion.

I personally disagree. I think journos are bought by government or corporate interests and shouldn't be trusted. This applies to 'free thinkers' who support Russia, by the way. A free society would be better without journalists.

And you are free to disagree. After all, we live in a society where information is free to flow and independent thought and reporting are allowed.

[Turenia]

Yes, they do. Independent journalists improve the information flow which is crucial to democracy. Sure, we can live without journalists and restricted flow of inormation. We can also live without freedom. Neither are acceptable ways of living in my opinion.

I personally disagree. I think journos are bought by government or corporate interests and shouldn't be trusted. This applies to 'free thinkers' who support Russia, by the way. A free society would be better without journalists.

This is too often the case.

[Fahran]

not to be too blunt here but there's an extremely strong parallel between this attitude and similar attitudes in the Israeli security services that leads to Palestinian teenages getting swept off the street and detained indefinitely for nebulous charges and with no due process.

that bubbling crisis, of course, was one of the big contributors to the mess we're currently in. so perhaps reconsider the chauvinistic smugness.

I don't think you're being particularly blunt. That said, there's a categorical difference between Israeli police, or any other police, arresting people over politically-charged tweets and the government of El Salvador declaring a state of exception in response to unmanageable levels of violence that have crippled society and arresting the people they can be reasonably confident are responsible for all the rape, kidnapping, and murder.

And who precisely am I being chauvinistic against here? It's not Latinos. It's not the working class. It's not men. It's arguably a coterie of murderers and rapists who decide to tattoo their allegiances prominently on their bodies, and, even then, I wouldn't describe supporting the desire of Salvadorans to live with some degree of safety chauvinism. If anything, efforts to impose a toothless liberalism that has not adequately addressed the country's problems across three or four decades because it appeals to Americans and Europeans strikes me as more chauvinistic than anything.

[Fahran]

Of course you have to think about due process rights for them, because these present attitudes of the state can easily be turned against anybody in society. Do you genuinely believe that because you have nothing to hide, had committed no crimes, that you have nothing to fear?

To add to Sarduri’s point, the atmosphere of the Israeli permanent state of exception against the Palestinians can easily be turned on the Israelis themselves. The funny boomerang will strike again.

Your rights don't really matter if your society is fundamentally unlivable for the vast majority of people living there. The fact of the matter is that conditions were so bad that Salvadorans welcomed the strongman response and the curtailing of rights required to resolve the gang problem. The government might well go on to persecute journalists or critics, but that's inconsequential given the gangs were persecuting far more people and in ways that could not be easily avoided by remaining silent. Don't get me wrong. It's problematic. That said, the other problem was more urgent and that's reflected in the response of Salvadorans to the state of exception - overwhelming support even among fairly progressive Salvadorans.

Not really, no. Israel hasn't exactly declared a state of exception in the conventional sense. It has instead engaged in a decades-long military occupation of the West Bank, something categorically different. There's not really an easy way for that to boomerang back onto the Israeli population in the sense you're implying. Mind you, I think Foucault's initial hypothesis is suspect anyway. A functionalist or policy specialist model explains police militarization a good deal better than the connection to colonialism really can at present.

In return for a dictatorship. Thing is governments are the biggest gangs.

And somehow a less murderous and more popular gang in this instance.

[Ineva]

It's not the position I am discrediting so much as it is the priorities of the Colombian government, which do not seem to concern the Colombian populace. I would be just as displeased if the Israeli government, during its time of crisis, called out El Salvador's government for its actions when they shared a symbiotic alliance. It merely comes off as hypocritical and lacking proper prioritization.

Of course it is the position you are trying to discredit. If Colombia said they were sending help to Israel instead, you wouldn't be criticizing them for caring about international issues. You'd laud it. But since they are taking a position against Israeli actions, you are now trying to find every single piece of dirt to throw against Colombia. We saw this campaign already against South Africa. We saw a similar one, though in smaller degree against Ireland. I can't say it's not effective, but the 'tu quoques' are certainly intellectually dishonest and hopefully they backfire greatly diplomatically.

I would not laud it; I'd be more confused than anything. I imagine every Colombian enduring the current crisis would feel similarly perplexed and quite upset that Colombian resources are being shipped away--rightfully so, they would feel that way.

We have not seen any such campaign against Ireland. It is a country that, in its current state, can safely and practically partake in diplomatic matters. It is thus quite clearly not the position I am attacking so much as it is the urgency of circumstances around it, in the case of Colombia.

[Fahran]

Gaza starvation could amount to war crime, UN human rights chief tells BBC

While I understand why the UN keeps employing tentative language, it's a bit frustrating that such careful language often leaves room for baseless speculations and denialism.

Hamas did commit acts of systematic sexual violence and crimes against humanity on October 7th.

Israel is committing a war crime and a crime against humanity by imposing a man-made famine on Palestinians living in Gaza.

And I could go on ad nauseam with a number of the fact-finding reports and remarks that have been made since October 7th and the escalation in violence. Tentative language does have a place in these conversations. It also unfortunately lends itself to the sorts of denialism we've seen multiple times here and else-where, and I shouldn't need to point out that this actually diminishes the quality of the conversation.

Of course it is the position you are trying to discredit. If Colombia said they were sending help to Israel instead, you wouldn't be criticizing them for caring about international issues. You'd laud it. But since they are taking a position against Israeli actions, you are now trying to find every single piece of dirt to throw against Colombia. We saw this campaign already against South Africa. We saw a similar one, though in smaller degree against Ireland. I can't say it's not effective, but the 'tu quoques' are certainly intellectually dishonest and hopefully they backfire greatly diplomatically.

I would find it puzzling given the hesitance of the Colombian government to act to support Ukraine, especially given the rhetorical flourishes Petro tends to prefer. That said, the simple fact of the matter is that foreign policy isn't rooted in liberal international relations or humanitarian concerns alone. There's at least some level of cynicism that goes into these decisions and these "principled" stands.

[Big Eyed Animation]

Gaza starvation could amount to war crime, UN human rights chief tells BBC

While I understand why the UN keeps employing tentative language, it's a bit frustrating that such careful language often leaves room for baseless speculations and denialism.

Hamas did commit acts of systematic sexual violence and crimes against humanity on October 7th.

Israel is committing a war crime and a crime against humanity by imposing a man-made famine on Palestinians living in Gaza.

And I could go on ad nauseam with a number of the fact-finding reports and remarks that have been made since October 7th and the escalation in violence. Tentative language does have a place in these conversations. It also unfortunately lends itself to the sorts of denialism we've seen multiple times here and else-where, and I shouldn't need to point out that this actually diminishes the quality of the conversation.

Of course it is the position you are trying to discredit. If Colombia said they were sending help to Israel instead, you wouldn't be criticizing them for caring about international issues. You'd laud it. But since they are taking a position against Israeli actions, you are now trying to find every single piece of dirt to throw against Colombia. We saw this campaign already against South Africa. We saw a similar one, though in smaller degree against Ireland. I can't say it's not effective, but the 'tu quoques' are certainly intellectually dishonest and hopefully they backfire greatly diplomatically.

I would find it puzzling given the hesitance of the Colombian government to act to support Ukraine, especially given the rhetorical flourishes Petro tends to prefer. That said, the simple fact of the matter is that foreign policy isn't rooted in liberal international relations or humanitarian concerns alone. There's at least some level of cynicism that goes into these decisions and these "principled" stands.

It's pretty clear that the evidence for bias is present.

Justifiably so, the US does not have a great history with S. America so it isn't too much of a stretch for folks in S. America to take an antagonistic stance in regards the IvP conflict.

We have posters here who are clearly fine with ANY kind of attack on Israelis, regardless of whether they are civilians or military, because they have been designated a colonizer or occupier. Same could be said of being related to the Israeli state. If Hamas designated the state of Israel as a terrorist occupational entity, then by their own admission, every single person living their is guilty by association.

There have been a fuck ton of double standards here by both sides.

[Durius]

Of course it is the position you are trying to discredit. If Colombia said they were sending help to Israel instead, you wouldn't be criticizing them for caring about international issues. You'd laud it. But since they are taking a position against Israeli actions, you are now trying to find every single piece of dirt to throw against Colombia. We saw this campaign already against South Africa. We saw a similar one, though in smaller degree against Ireland. I can't say it's not effective, but the 'tu quoques' are certainly intellectually dishonest and hopefully they backfire greatly diplomatically.

I would find it puzzling given the hesitance of the Colombian government to act to support Ukraine, especially given the rhetorical flourishes Petro tends to prefer. That said, the simple fact of the matter is that foreign policy isn't rooted in liberal international relations or humanitarian concerns alone. There's at least some level of cynicism that goes into these decisions and these "principled" stands.

Where are you reading hesitancy to support Ukraine from?

[Ifreann]

Collateral damage is not genocide.

Hamas posed an existential threat not just to the state of Israel but to the citizens of Israel as well as evidenced by the unceasing rocket barrage fired from Gaza and Lebanon for the past 20 years.

Imma stop you there, because that's a really obvious contradiction. If Hamas has been firing rockets are Israel for twenty years and Israel still exists then obviously Hamas aren't an existential threat to Israel.

Duh.

[Elwher]

Collateral damage is not genocide.

Hamas posed an existential threat not just to the state of Israel but to the citizens of Israel as well as evidenced by the unceasing rocket barrage fired from Gaza and Lebanon for the past 20 years.

Imma stop you there, because that's a really obvious contradiction. If Hamas has been firing rockets are Israel for twenty years and Israel still exists then obviously Hamas aren't an existential threat to Israel.

Duh.

So, since Israel has been killing Palestinians for so long and there are still Palestinians, obviously it isn't genocide?

[Ifreann]

Imma stop you there, because that's a really obvious contradiction. If Hamas has been firing rockets are Israel for twenty years and Israel still exists then obviously Hamas aren't an existential threat to Israel.

Duh.

So, since Israel has been killing Palestinians for so long and there are still Palestinians, obviously it isn't genocide?

No, the crime of genocide doesn't require the attempts to destroy a people to be successful.