Israel/Palestine thread

You linked to obviously different coins ya chucklehead.

Hashim Safi Al Din lasted less that Liz Truss

People shouldn't lose their homes just because their ancestors lived elsewhere 2,500 years ago.

There is. That’s what proportionality addresses.

Also here again, the same kind of thinking that Hamas, etc have.

The premise was the right to self defense.

your last 2 posts just dont comport with reality. Hamas is not wholesale killing 10s of thousands of civilians. ffs they dont even shoot at medical helicopters.

I didn’t bring it up as a way to condemn Israel but to make a case for the sentiment of the international community. The post I was responding to was deleted so maybe you didn’t see that that was the subject. That person had stated that the majority of the international community believes Israel has a right to self defense. I was agreeing but with what I thought was necessary qualification of the overwhelming opposition to continued hostilities.

Again, I was talking about a theoretical right, not what they’re practicing in reality which I agree goes well beyond the necessities of defense.

If you put 10k Israeli women and children waiting on the other side of the fence, and you let 2000 Hamas fighters break through that fence, and your imagination doesn't go to EXACTLY what would happen....I dunno. I guess I'd just ask you to explain it.

ok my bad. I didnt interpret you correctly. thanks.

If your leaders wage war against a stronger country you can lose your home.

Solution: change leaders

Proportionality is something you use to keep things stable, not to solve problems.

Proportionality makes no sense if you are stronger than your enemy.

Every strategy has to be justified by the goals it wants to pursue. What would Israel achieve with proportionality? their morally just goal is to PERMANENTLY MAKE IT SO neighbours can't throw rockets to them, nor hurt them in any other way whatsoever.

How would proportionality achieve that?

By not entering into forever wars or alienating allies.

The strategy is a generational war of attrition in which the Palestinians and Hezbollah are currently the front line. The puppet masters are Russia/China/Iran, whose goal is to wear down the US's infinite money printer. When interest payments on the national debt are currently > the military budget, with absolutely no hope of abating, it's not surprising that the Axis is loving the situation and are currently licking their chops.

This is why Israel wants to escalate by punishing civilians and goading them into a more acute conflict, whereas Hezbollah and Hamas are just trying to make life hell for the Israeli military. Any $5,000 rocket that gets shot down by a $70k Iron Dome missile (and it usually takes many of them at once) is good for Axis morale and bad for Western, so Israel needs to get back to some semblance of deterrence to slow the bleeding.

The problem is that this brings more Gen Z voters to the side of rooting against Israel, which, given that these people will eventually be calling the shots, is why they can't actually win in the long term.

first ever post in this thread is never suspicious, lol

Sorry, I've been following and wanted to see how the various sides would react to this argument, so react away. Even if I am a foreign actor, logic is logic.

Another Kelhus alt?

Proportionality in the sense of not causing death and damage to innocent people beyond the scope of what’s unavoidable for a legitimate military gain. It doesn’t mean no collateral damage, just not beyond what’s unavoidable for a target of sufficient value. Killing 50 innocent people to get Nasrallah might pass that test in the right circumstances but killing the same amount for some grunt not so much. So, proportionality isn’t meant to hamstring anyone from pursuing reasonable goals it’s just meant as a guide for what could come under legal scrutiny.

Israel going no holds barred might make them more likely to win in the short term but I don’t think it’s a good long term strategy. For one, they’re not going to kill their way to lasting peace. Whenever this ends it’s just a matter of time until groups rearm or new groups emerge if nothing else changes in Israel’s relation to its neighbors. Secondly, it’s doing major damage to their image in the world and they may end up with less support when something happens in the future and a younger generation is in power in allied countries.

they killed closer to 500 than 50 for Nasrallah

Whatever the number is, there’s some number which is considered more or less reasonable depending on the circumstances. Israel is more likely to be in the clear for someone like him than if it were someone less senior. I don’t know how that’s estimated but I think it’s clear that most people think Israel has the math wrong, generally.

there is hope to abating interest payments on public debt, it's called interest rates going down which is already happening.

no proportionality is "we can't kill nasrallah because they didn't kill any of our leaders"

There is "too hard" if.

1. Less hard harms fewer innocents

2. Less hard does more good, because it doesn't alienate people on your side

3. Your main goal is not "retalition" but rather to prevent something and the less hard option does just as good a job or better.

4. The thing you are retaliating about is minor

5. The misdeed you are retaliating for was done by someone who, for whatever reason, truly did not think they were doing something wrong (eg animals).

This leaves people who know (as do your friends) that they are wrong to seriously harm you but will do it anyway, usually for personal game. For them no retaliation restriction should be applied.

6. It harms ourselves too much. The soldiers and country are going to have to live with what they've done.

So if Israel dropped a nuclear bomb on Gaza this would be justified under the banner of retaliation?

I think obviously this is either hyperbole or an insane statement. I’m curious how you’re going to walk this back.