4 ms·

> what Hamas did in October ...is not all of what Hamas is responsible for, nor a limited statement of its goals or desires. Nor frankly does it even reflect

by ajross 2y ago

> what Hamas did in October ...is not all of what Hamas is responsible for, nor a limited statement of its goals or desires. Nor frankly does it even reflect the limits of what non-palestinians like you are calling for. All the kids in NYC chanting "From the River to the Sea" are embracing a genocidal frame (that the expulsion of an existing population from its home is an OK thing to do). And... you don't really care, and choose to excuse that while you condemn the other side. And so you (yes, you personally) are making things worse and not better. Because when Hamas or whoever finally gets to the line with an army capable of marching across it, they'll think they have your support. Like I said, there will be no peace here. And the reason is opinions like yours that choose to excuse one evil while you rail against another.

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
<< is not all of what Hamas is responsible for I read and then re-read the parent. It does not not appear that he has been discussing the totality of both 'sides' actions ( and there is a loooong history there ), but rather focused on most recent Hamas action and Israel's response to it. From where I sit, OP is not wrong. It is tiring - it is especially tiring when it is couched in moralistic 'you should support <my side>' with the undertone of 'because we are the good guys'. I am starting to seriously doubt there are good guys here. << And so you (yes, you personally) are making things worse and not better. Because when Hamas or whoever finally gets to the line with an army capable of marching across it, they'll think they have your support. And I guess this is the weirdest part. There is really one army in this conflict. An army with technology, training, supplies and knowledge seemingly to do whatever is needed -- some of it courtesy of American taxpayer -- and still managing to fail so hard across the board against seemingly inferior enemy, who adopted guerrilla warfare. << And the reason is opinions like yours that choose to excuse one evil while you rail against another. I remain unconvinced. OP is not excusing anything. Personally, I can easily say Hamas is bad. Can you openly say Israel's response is bad? Can you even openly state its response is 'over the top'? No? Then the discussion will remain fruitless and the issue will remain as-is for and will not be solved within our lifetimes. Might as well check out and keep US semi-safe.
- ajross 2y ago
  > Can you openly say Israel's response is bad? Can you even openly state its response is 'over the top'? Israel's response is bad. Israel's response is 'over the top'. Can you state that responses to that which embrace eliminationist goals are likewise bad? Do you condemn not just "Hamas" but Palestinian nationalist aims (oft-parroted by activist westerners who don't really understand what it means) of retaking the 1948 land? Or do you just look the other way and figure The Jews Have It Coming? You're picking a side here, whether you admit it or not. And picking a side means that someone loses.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
    << Can you state that responses to that which embrace eliminationist goals are likewise bad? Sure, elimanationist goals are likewise bad. I will go even further, it is a really bad idea for the humanity to go down that path, because, if history taught us anything, it is really, really hard to stop violence once it starts. << Do you condemn not just "Hamas" but Palestinian nationalist aims? Can you define those a little more closely? I am hedging, because it is already moving way past the discussion at play and if want to evaluate all nations nationalist aims, I am not sure we should be limiting ourselves to just Palestinians. << You're picking a side here, whether you admit it or not. I worry that you may have chosen a side and are not arguing in good faith ( whether you admit it or not ). Based on your statement, no matter what I say, you have already made a determination about me and my views. That is fine. I am ok with stopping this conversation here. I am not expecting to change minds. I was, however, expecting more. << And picking a side means that someone loses. Does it really have to be that way? Is it truly a zero-sum game? It is not a rhetorical question. I am curious if you can imagine a non-binary world.
    - ajross 2y ago
      > I worry that you may have chosen a side and are not arguing in good faith Which side do you think I've picked? What can I say to convince you that I haven't? There are no solutions here. There can be no Palestinian homeland within the 1948 borders without terrible violence. There will be no peace within Gaza and the West Bank without it. At best we can achieve a detent for a while and an end to the immediate violence, with a pie-in-the-sky best case of some kind of end to the west bank settlement activity and maybe a little clawing back of recently-taken territory. If you're asking for more than that, on either side, you're perpetuating the conflict and making things worse. Because eventually we'll get to a stage where one side isn't dominant, and what happens then is an actual shooting war with millions of civilian casualties.
WhackyIdeas 2y ago
“choose to excuse one evil while you rail against another.” Well that is incorrect and to put words in my mouth and then personally attack based on said words is kind of pointless. My argument is about genocide. Words don’t equate genocide, but certain actions are. I don’t think you’ll be winning any nobel peace prizes for figuring out the difference.
- ajross 2y ago
  > My argument is about genocide. And my argument is that your "genocide argument" is overnarrow and has the effect of picking a side in a conflict that cannot and will not end unless people stop perpetuate it like that. Stopping your particular favorite enemy has the effect of empowering and emboldening their enemies, who are just as bad.

by ajross 2y ago

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago

<< is not all of what Hamas is responsible for I read and then re-read the parent. It does not not appear that he has been discussing the totality of both 'sides' actions ( and there is a loooong history there ), but rather focused on most recent Hamas action and Israel's response to it. From where I sit, OP is not wrong. It is tiring - it is especially tiring when it is couched in moralistic 'you should support <my side>' with the undertone of 'because we are the good guys'. I am starting to seriously doubt there are good guys here. << And so you (yes, you personally) are making things worse and not better. Because when Hamas or whoever finally gets to the line with an army capable of marching across it, they'll think they have your support. And I guess this is the weirdest part. There is really one army in this conflict. An army with technology, training, supplies and knowledge seemingly to do whatever is needed -- some of it courtesy of American taxpayer -- and still managing to fail so hard across the board against seemingly inferior enemy, who adopted guerrilla warfare. << And the reason is opinions like yours that choose to excuse one evil while you rail against another. I remain unconvinced. OP is not excusing anything. Personally, I can easily say Hamas is bad. Can you openly say Israel's response is bad? Can you even openly state its response is 'over the top'? No? Then the discussion will remain fruitless and the issue will remain as-is for and will not be solved within our lifetimes. Might as well check out and keep US semi-safe.

ajross 2y ago
> Can you openly say Israel's response is bad? Can you even openly state its response is 'over the top'? Israel's response is bad. Israel's response is 'over the top'. Can you state that responses to that which embrace eliminationist goals are likewise bad? Do you condemn not just "Hamas" but Palestinian nationalist aims (oft-parroted by activist westerners who don't really understand what it means) of retaking the 1948 land? Or do you just look the other way and figure The Jews Have It Coming? You're picking a side here, whether you admit it or not. And picking a side means that someone loses.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
  << Can you state that responses to that which embrace eliminationist goals are likewise bad? Sure, elimanationist goals are likewise bad. I will go even further, it is a really bad idea for the humanity to go down that path, because, if history taught us anything, it is really, really hard to stop violence once it starts. << Do you condemn not just "Hamas" but Palestinian nationalist aims? Can you define those a little more closely? I am hedging, because it is already moving way past the discussion at play and if want to evaluate all nations nationalist aims, I am not sure we should be limiting ourselves to just Palestinians. << You're picking a side here, whether you admit it or not. I worry that you may have chosen a side and are not arguing in good faith ( whether you admit it or not ). Based on your statement, no matter what I say, you have already made a determination about me and my views. That is fine. I am ok with stopping this conversation here. I am not expecting to change minds. I was, however, expecting more. << And picking a side means that someone loses. Does it really have to be that way? Is it truly a zero-sum game? It is not a rhetorical question. I am curious if you can imagine a non-binary world.
  - ajross 2y ago
    > I worry that you may have chosen a side and are not arguing in good faith Which side do you think I've picked? What can I say to convince you that I haven't? There are no solutions here. There can be no Palestinian homeland within the 1948 borders without terrible violence. There will be no peace within Gaza and the West Bank without it. At best we can achieve a detent for a while and an end to the immediate violence, with a pie-in-the-sky best case of some kind of end to the west bank settlement activity and maybe a little clawing back of recently-taken territory. If you're asking for more than that, on either side, you're perpetuating the conflict and making things worse. Because eventually we'll get to a stage where one side isn't dominant, and what happens then is an actual shooting war with millions of civilian casualties.

WhackyIdeas 2y ago

“choose to excuse one evil while you rail against another.” Well that is incorrect and to put words in my mouth and then personally attack based on said words is kind of pointless. My argument is about genocide. Words don’t equate genocide, but certain actions are. I don’t think you’ll be winning any nobel peace prizes for figuring out the difference.

ajross 2y ago
> My argument is about genocide. And my argument is that your "genocide argument" is overnarrow and has the effect of picking a side in a conflict that cannot and will not end unless people stop perpetuate it like that. Stopping your particular favorite enemy has the effect of empowering and emboldening their enemies, who are just as bad.