Anyway, enough with Putin for a while...back to @Chairman:
Hello again, long message buddy. :)
"I was once very adamantly pro-Israeli but got fed up when I realized the stark gravity of the situation here. This most recent flare-up I think is the most egregious on Israel's part as Hamas had been making strides towards real unity and peace up to it and now all that is broken once again."
I'll state at the outset that, again, I disagree with what is, I think, a key part of your premise, that being that Hamas has made strides to unity and peace. I've said in my previous, shorter response to you that I don't think that's the case at all, so if that's your position, you're going to have to prove it somehow, because that's a premise that I not only can't take for granted, but see no evidence for and thus completely oppose.
"To get something out of away initially is this idea that Hamas is the "Tea-Party" wing as you say in one post and wants to kill as Israelis no matter what. This I would say is a misguided view that demonizes them unnecessarily which makes conceding or changing your perspective on other, more reasonable points nigh impossible. Understand that Hamas is a democratically elected governing body for a people put under intense pressure, some of whom have been born and grown up in an environment that has only known war and aggression with Israel. Extremist language is going to be natural in this atmosphere."
1. Democratically-elected does not mean that they're good, however, or that they are given to compromise, as you say--particularly as, again, their platform was one of non-compromise, and that's how they won, a platform of promising not to compromise with Israel and promising violence towards Israel. You are right that such an environment breeds extremism, but that's why I feel that Hamas needs to be viewed as just that--extremist, hence my Tea Party analogy, who are by their own admission on the right of the Right, as it were...heck, Eric Cantor, who was considered to be very right, just lost to a Tea Party candidate because even he wasn't Right enough. The same seems to be true in Gaza--moderate parties which would be better for both sides are shouted down and voted out by extremists. That makes Hamas' rise to power understandable, but doesn't clear them of the extremism charge which I lobbied at them, and which you yourself seem to accept.
2. I again put it to you to convince me that Hamas is not "bad" or, to put it another way, that they're not worthy of the charges which have been put against them. I'd add that, when a group quite literally runs on a "Kill all Israelis" platform, they are BEGGING to be demonized--and I mean that, as they really do embrace that image...the more Israel and the West demonizes them, the more they count it as a victory.
3. It may then be asked why, then, the Israelis and Westerners don't just stop this, and instead try to "kill with kindness," as it were, and portray Hamas as a good, caring party rather than as one that runs on a "Kill all Israelis" platform, which is by no means good. I would argue that it's simply a Catch-22 situation:
Call Hamas out for their stance and treat them negatively, and they count that as a win.
Cater to Hamas and treat them as a "good" party, and well, that's a win too, isn't it?
And actually, the Tea Party DOES do much the same thing--when they receive criticism, they embrace it and turn it on its head, as if the highest praise WERE to be criticized for being too far to the Right or too extremist...and when they win, well, they win.
So there's no good answer to this, as Hamas claims victory either way, and that being the case, if they're going to claim victory either way, I'd rather they were called out for the evil that they are rather than pretend that they're somehow not that...
And again, I cannot accept the premise that they're not wrong or evil without you presenting evidence to that point, more than "they're trying to change," as I have repeatedly show that they're in fact not, and if you'd like, I'll share their latest slogans, to show how little change there has actually been, if that will solve that portion of the debate. Objectively speaking, the position of Hamas has not changed, nor have their words, nor has their platform, and so, when none of those factors change and they likewise continue rocket attacks as they have for years, I see no basis to say that they have or are intending to change.
They are extremists, by their own admission; thus I treat them as such, and I think it's fair to say that any group running on a platform of "Kill all Group X" is a categorically bad group...and the same would be the case were one of those extremist Jewish parties in Israel to run under the same banner.
"Remember, all politics are local), then it would follow that no nation on Earth should be working with Israel because of the Samson Option."
Given the hundreds of posts worth of debate we just had here about nuclear weapons being used, before I state anything here, I'd ask that you give the reason why--is it because (as I stated over and over here) that nuclear weapons are qualitatively different (in my view) or another reason...and are you talking about Israel having those weapons/this contingency plan or actually putting it into effect?
"You have to identify these as the extremist and widely unrealistic pipe dreams that they are. Hamas will never have the capability to destroy Israel or all Israelis and it's simply not fair to pin this as justification for continued aggression and keeping of the status quo."
1. The status quo is the OPPOSITE of what I want, since that would be a return to the 2012 ceasefire...and I have now stated repeatedly that I want Hamas out...which, whether we agree on that or not, we can at least agree WOULD be different than the status quo now insofar as that current status quo contains Hamas in Gaza.
2. This continued aggression is on both sides. The difference is that one side is equipped better than the other, but that doesn't mean one side is more aggressive than the other, rather that their aggression produces larger results. However, it's worth noting Israel has experienced more casualties this time on the ground, and that by all accounts Hamas is more well equipped this time, and that they're actually pushing fighting up to the Gaza border more than before.
Even if that were not the case, however, the fact remains that both sides are aggressive here, and that the difference is that one side's simply stronger than the other...but being weaker than an enemy doesn't mean you're not being aggressive towards that enemy, hence all the other guerrilla fighting done in the world before, and how often that's ended with those fighters doing serious damage, which brings me to...
3. As Hamas has become better and better equipped each time, and actually has rockets with a far longer range this time, it does seem that Hamas is progressing. By themselves, could they ever destroy Israel? I don't know. But the fact is that this is not the only conflict occurring in the Middle East, of course, and that the powerful Muslim Brotherhood and the suddenly-powerful ISIS BOTH are ideologically similar too Hamas. Is it too much of a stretch to imagine them helping or supplying Hamas in the future? What's more, just today, Hezbollah announced its readiness to join in the attack on Israel. As such, it isn't as if Hamas is a weak threat, or even a lone threat, or even a threat that could collapse from within. They are a serious threat that need be taken seriously, as if they did work in concert with those other groups, they could very well do a severe amount of damage to Israel.
On the two articles that you posted:
"Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel, says there is no formal truce. But its officials privately allow that Hamas, and smaller Gazan armed groups, are holding fire to allow efforts to repair the territory's ravaged infrastructure."
^I would argue that that's the most likely rationale for that lull, that it was more Hamas licking wounds and preparing itself rather than an earnest effort at peace...I'd argue that point is strengthened by Hamas' own admission that they didn't do so because they were observing a truce, but rather simply because they were affecting repairs to their infrastructure (which, in hindsight, I'd honestly be interested in knowing the nature of, if those repairs had something to do with these tunnels, but that is a bias too far, I'll grant you, so I'm not suggesting that's actually the case, but rather surmising that I don't see those efforts linked so much as pro-peace as much as they are Hamas healing itself, since Hamas gave no such point to peace or even to the truce.)
I WILL say that that's at least a linked article supporting your stance that they did technically curb rocket fire, so in fairness, you did back that part up; I again would reiterate that, for the reasons above, I don't see that as a reason to believe Hamas is interested in peace with ISRAEL (that last word being emphasized there...perhaps they want peace for themselves at some point, but they don't wish it for Israel) but that's at least more evidence than anyone else has been able to present to me.
Taking note of your quoting me:
"So you see, for one side, attacks which are largely symbolic and have a casualty count you number on two hands are completely unacceptable, have in fact made Israel stronger, and there are other forms of more acceptable expressions of rage that can be pursued."
I do think that they're unacceptable, yes, and that if they are "symbolic" expressions of rage, I'd ask why they should put others at risk of death for their own expression? If I had the worst kind of rage, if I shot bullets into the sky in a parking lot, would that be an acceptable, ethical, moral expression of that rage? Most of us would say no, because I might hurt an innocent person with that demonstration.
Now imagine I take that gun and actually TRY to shoot someone...imagine it's a very weak gun, perhaps, limited in range and that it's nowhere near as powerful as a police man's gun, but still, I COULD hurt someone with it...and what's worse, I don't care if I do, or even wish to, all as an outlet for my rage--would THAT be fair, ethical, or moral?
"But for the other, attacks against high density targets, where innocent deaths are inevitable, and routinely number in the hundreds, are acceptable because why? Are Gazan lives worth less than Israelis?"
I'll stick with my above example, slightly expanded--
Suppose I and 5 friends do just what I mentioned above, shooting in the air and at people around us in the parking lot of a store with limited range guns. Now imagine the police come, and they have us outnumbered 5 to 1. Shooting at these policemen as "an expression of our rage" in the open would be absurd--we'd be dead, right?
So, we go into the store. It's a Saturday, and a very crowded store. We take cover everywhere we can, regardless of whether people are there or not. The police come in, and the place goes into lock down. The innocent shoppers inside can't get out, and indeed, we take cover where there are A LOT of shoppers. We effectively have a hostage situation, and hours of this go on and on, until finally, we open fire again, both at the policemen and through a backdoor that we've found that leads back into the parking lot. If the police shoot, at all, chance are they're going to hit some innocent people, we'll say that we're extremely well entrenched here, so well entrenched that even for a sharpshooter it'd be a difficult shot, and there are many of us, and we're moving, and shooting this whole time, and thus we're not stationary targets that can be carefully targeted until a perfect, precise, 100% accurate shot is made that has a 100% chance of hitting us and no one else. There will already be casualties, because we're shooting. If the police open fire, at all, there will be even more casualties, and let's add to this by making our group out to be one that WANTS casualties, because that means fame and attention, and we're rather Columbine-esque shooters that take death and attention as a win, so like those shooters, we have a bomb...theirs didn't work, but ours will, if we're not stopped.
THAT is how I view, in part, the Israeli action in Gaza at the present moment...a loose metaphor that's meant more as a guideline thought experiment than a strict 1 to 1 comparison (for example, there are probably a lot of police procedures to help with evacuations in this case that I don't know of as I'm not a cop) and therein lies the problem--
You cannot let those shooters keep on shooting, as even with short-range, weaker guns, they WILL cause damage, WILL kill people, and in any event, allowing them to do so would still be categorically wrong...heck, even if we somehow had an Iron Dome analogue that could stop 90% of those bullets, 10% would still go through, and that's far too many to allow with respect to innocent people.
Now, would the policemen face extreme, EXTREME scrutiny if they hit a great many innocent civilians? YES. I daresay they'd probably lose their jobs. But I also think they'd do what they could in this no-win scenario.
Israel deserves criticism for these deaths, I'm not disputing that...but the police don't intend to shoot the civilians, and as such, in intent-based ethics (if we're to go Kantian for a change) the police are not ethically responsible for the deaths of the civilians as the shooters are their own "moral agents" and it's their decision to put those civilians in danger and their intent to kill others that is ethically wrong. The policemen, if they truly don't intend to harm someone, are only their own moral agents and thus are only responsible for their own moral intent in this instance.
So realistically, the policemen would be fired and Israel receives criticism.
But in ethical terms, it's Hamas and the shooters who are responsible as moral agents for the intent towards harm that caused that shooting...and indeed, both parties began the shooting.
What's more, the shooters/Hamas intentionally targeted civilians, and the Israelis/policemen did not.
Furthermore, I'd go so far as to say that, even for those that disagree with me on the ethics here, this is probably how the Israelis see it too, ie, as policemen vs. obvious criminals.
Now, a few additional things to close out this point:
1. I know some people have an issue with policemen. I myself am frankly indifferent to the whole controversy there...I think policemen are just as good or just as bad as any other professionals--same as a construction worker, teacher, doctor, accountant, you name it, there are good ones genuinely interested in helping, bad ones that abuse power, and ones just doing it for a job because everyone needs to make a living. So, if you have a bias against policemen, just for the record, I'm not painting them as idolized here, nor am I demonizing them, I'm neutral on that point.
2. That does raise a point that comes up all too often here in California with the LAPD, however--"excessive use of force," which is probably the closest charge that we could lobby at these policemen in this analogue. On that point? I'd note that in most such cases, the suspect isn't actually attacking someone at the moment (hence the charge) AND that they're not attacking on such a scale as this, AND they're not attacking civilians at this, AND they're not doing so with firearms.
"Force" isn't the troublesome word there, but "excessive"--and that has to be weighed with "effectiveness," and all that has to be weighed together in quick moments as they fire.
3. There are those that would say, in a Kantian sense, "Well, if they're their own more agents, let the shooters fire. They're in the wrong, and to respond to them would likewise be wrong." This is what I hear somewhat in the "Let the Iron Dome sort it out" defense. This is untenable in terms of a political reality, however, for both the analogy and the actual situation--the police, commissioner, and mayor would be lambasted if the police didn't act, and likewise, Israelis would be in an uproar if their own government did not act to respond to that kind of fire. The question is, again, one of excess vs. effectiveness, but that's the great trap door for this in terms of this debate--viewing this in a Kantian way cuts out that idea of "degree," it's either Israelis and supporters seeing it as categorically right to emphasize effectiveness over excess, or its Palestinians and their supporters seeing it categorically wrong to see it that way. And if we flip this, and make this a Utilitarian account, then the police may well hit more innocents than we'd like to see, as the Israelis are, and that we'd be tempted to weigh that pain as worse than the pain of letting the shooters simply shoot--after all, there are less of them. But that somehow seems wrong...how can it be more moral to allow shooters with apparently-malicious intent to shoot rather than to allow more policemen with peace-keeping intentions to shoot?
Neither answer is really satisfactory in terms of how we perceive it, the Kantian or the Utilitarian method, hence this endless debate.
"Should the Gazan people suffer for being caught in the crossfire between Hamas and Israel?"
No, but as I asked Putin, where would they go? Not Egypt, they're not willing, and as I've pointed out to Putin, there are so many problems with moving them to Israel that it's frankly hard to know where to start...I refer you to that previous post...and hopefully you can be more understanding of my concerns there than Putin, who seems not to realize the apparent dangers (not to mention all the different policy violations) that could occur with Gazans who may or may not want to evacuate being forced out by Israeli soldiers (who they may very well clash with) and being moved to Israel (where Israelis don't want them and where there's the potential for fighting within Israel itself from either the Gazans, the soldiers responding to the Gazans, Jewish extremists targeting those refugees, or any combination thereof), the issue of what to do if Gazans then refuse to go back (which, given that many Gazans don't recognize Israel as a state in the first place is a very real concern) and so on.
"Why are these attacks, which are not parity in any way, civil for one side but not the other?"
I would again point to intent--one side intends to hit Hamas, and the other intends to hit ALL Israelis. Both are terrible options, but of those two, there is only one actually aiming for (and proudly proclaiming that they're aiming for) civilians.
"What justifies civilian deaths for Israel but not for Hamas?"
The civilian deaths are not justified, but understandable, which is a distinction I've tried to make on this forum before. There is a difference between saying something is justifiable and saying something is understandable...to return to my previous analogy, it likely isn't justifiable for the cops to accidentally hit so many civilians while trying to get the shooters with the bomb, hence why they likely wouldn't keep their jobs, and why Israel faces the equivalent, being shunned by many in the world and losing, instead of their "jobs," that esteem. However, it's understandable why, in a pressure situation, those policemen may do what they did, and I think it's understandable why Israel feels it must respond the way it must.
Which raises its own, related question, why is it OK for Israel to act on doing "what it must" when presumably those militants firing rockets to "express themselves" are feeling the same? Simply put, the Israelis here are reactionary--and frankly, I think Hamas knows that, I think both sides know that. It's sort of the way this plays out--
Hamas striking first with rockets gives it the ability to promote itself to its people, and THEN Israel gets to respond and say its "acting in self-defense."
So really, it's a self-serving cycle for BOTH sides...one that needs to stop...which is why those rocket attacks need to stop, as they kick start the whole damned thing over and over again.
"Why is going to social media an option for one but not the other?"
As both sides have used social media, I really don't understand this one...?
"Israeli gets its cake and can eat it too?"
I hardly think so, it faces losses on the ground and nations that condemn its actions.
"Your reasoning here raises many troubling questions, and I think it's more troubling that you view Israel's response as "restrained", believing a total, potentially nuclear engagement or all out massacre would be...more appropriate? justified?"
First of all, where is the nuclear attack point coming in here? I think I said they wouldn't do that...and with good reason, as, well, nuking Gaza would basically be dropping a bomb on themselves...?
And yes. Israel IS being restrained--THAT is the capacity of Israel's military, that it's such an elite force that frankly were it not to be restrained Gaza could very well cease to exist. You may argue that they should be even more restrained, but by the standards of what they could do, they're restraining themselves in that regard. What's more, I'd again say there's a fine balancing line between restraint and effectiveness...and given that Hamas is intentionally firing on cities and civilians, I'd ask where the calls for THEM to be restrained are. The fact they can't inflict as much damage as can the Israelis is no reason not to ask them to restrain themselves, or to see that they're trying to cause damage and ask them to restrain themselves by not openly declaring they want all Israelis dead...
THAT is rather unrestrained, if you ask me.
"It's hard to read but I don't think you're giving equal credence to the death of innocent lives here. Hamas may be stationed in Gaza and may have equipment there, but that does not justify murdering innocents and routinely destroying civilian infrastructure to stop attacks that are already rebuffed by the Iron Dome, which do not disproportionally impact Israelis, and which could be resolved in other ways."
At this point we are going in circles a bit, because I'm again forced to say what I and everyone else on my side of the fence in the media have been saying throughout this conflict, so much so you can complete the sentence yourself, really...
That if Hamas weren't in civilian areas...weren't stationed there...didn't fire from there...
And you know where I'm going with that. If they really want the damage to the civilian infrastructure to stop, then frankly, they should stop firing from those areas...
Because even if you wanted to make the argument the Israelis are being excessive, *I* would likewise argue that at this point, Hamas is being NEGLIGENT.
Really, this IS the third war since 2009 now--they should KNOW full well by now what shooting rocket attacks from those areas will do, and they do it anyway, so either they want Israel to destroy the area so they can get the aid and sympathy, or they frankly don't care if Israel destroys those innocent lives so long as they have civilian infrastructure to hide behind.
Wouldn't you blame someone else for being ignorant or negligent or just not learning their lesson (or caring) if they kept doing the same thing over and over again with the same damaging result? If you leave your child in a hot locked car ONCE it's negligence...twice, or three times? NOW you really should know better, and NOW it's fully your fault for either knowing what you're doing, or else being so criminally negligent as to not know after those three times and still putting lives at risk.
I've already commented on the Iron Dome point...
And again, the ONLY reason things are "disproportionate" is that Israel has a better defense, it's NOT because Hamas is less aggressive in terms of intent or, indeed, rhetoric and actual targets...for as many civilian targets as Israel hits, it hits many, many tunnels, rocket launchers and other such militant targets. Hamas? Nearly all of its targets are civilian. That's aggressive...and actually, that's a disproportionate degree of aggression in another way, ie, not in terms of damage, but targets--
Israel targets Hamas fighters and infrastructure, Hamas targets ANYTHING and ANYONE in Israel that it can, indiscriminately and, indeed, criminally.
"The only way to change this is, as I've stated, for Israel to change its overly aggressive and heavy-handed policies, and work with the Gazan governing body, no matter who it is, to crack down on the criminal elements that do fire rockets in times of ceasefire and calm."
And here again we have our divide, because you characterize that rocket fire as merely "criminal elements," when in fact, it's Gaza's own government doing the vast, vast majority of it. Those tight Israeli policies might not be in place were it not for Hamas being next door, so it DOES matter "who it is," that government...
I have to ask--do you think any government can work with any government, or do you believe that some are simply incompatible? I personally don't think that a government that has, again, as its platform, a "Kill all Israelis" sentiment, and one that then proudly, explicitly, and publically targets "all Israelis" can then be accepted by...Israelis. That simply isn't someone you're likely to do business with, let alone someone who you can trust enough to relax security.
That slogan and that platform is an absolute deal-breaker, and I at this point would ask why you seem opposed to the idea of ousting Hamas in favor of another party? If peace is that important (which it is), what irreplaceable or valuable asset is lost by ousting Hamas in favor of a moderate group...
Heck, at this point, let's just settle for someone who doesn't run on a "Kill all Israelis" political platform...but how "worth it" is Hamas, really?
Gaza is worth it, Palestinians are worth it...but Hamas? Why not advocate for their removal? Why be so attached to them? They're not working as the solution, and fair or no, Israel as the far bigger party really can dictate terms a little bit here...
Suppose Israel, today, said that they would not only cease firing, but return to those peace talks on a two-state solution, and their condition was the removal of Hamas from power in Gaza in favor of another, more moderate party of the Gazan's choosing. Leaving aside if that could actually be done, as a hypothetical from me to you--would you be OK with that condition? If not, then I have to ask why Hamas is so worth it that even that hypothetical peace deal wouldn't be enough to persuade you to abandon support of them.
"They bomb high density areas where civilian deaths are inevitable, and have no problems doing it."
It's that "and have no problems doing it" part I dispute...I have said repeatedly that I view it and they view it as a necessary evil, and it's hard for something to be an evil, necessary or otherwise, if you don't have a problem with it.
"Gaza would have an economy, and the international community would make efforts to help Gaza, if it was not blocked by Israel at every pass."
And Gaza would not be blocked or, indeed, blockaded if not for Hamas, so we really do go in circles around that one point, lol. :)
"Israel is effectively sieging Gaza and currently has it under occupation. These are indisputable facts."
I disagree there given the connotation of those terms, but I'll leave that alone...
"They are control the majority of Gaza's borders, they blockade its ports, decide what materials can go in and out, and if they had your way, they would also decide whether its government was acceptable or not. Israel has Gaza completely under its boot heel, to be pressed and lifted as they please. Gaza does not assert this sort of control on Israel, no matter how many rockets they fire."
Again ignoring the "boot heel" comment...
Gaza does not exert that kind of control over Israel, but not for lack of intent or desire.
As for the government, I'm again going to say...yes--as the victor of war after war there, Israel DOES have the leverage to dictate, to a certain degree, what goes on in what is effectively its own backyard, and when you have a group saying and doing what Hamas says and does, you, as the group with leverage, have the political imperative to use that leverage to protect the interests your own constituents first, namely, your own people.
Deciding what materials go in and out?
That wouldn't be necessary if those materials didn't include those rockets, yes?
Blockading ports?
Again, would they do that if not for the concern over terrorism and rockets?
We're going around in a circle because this really is a vicious circle in every sense of the word...
I WILL say, however, that you're treating this as if Hamas (and here I draw the distinction between Hamas and Gazan citizens) should have the same degree of diplomatic say in what occurs as should Israel--and as Hamas has not only lost conflict after conflict to Israel while Gaza's been destroyed due to their willingness to fight from within it and then act shocked that it is attacked, and as they are a terror group with frankly appalling ideology, I have to disagree that they should receive an equal seat in talks as Israel.
Now, GAZA SHOULD RECEIVE AN EQUAL SEAT...as should the PLO...
But Hamas? Hamas has done nothing to deserve equal standing with the PLO or Israel, and frankly, rewarding them with that is to reward what they've done, which is to radicalize the area, further destroy an already lagging economy, and fight guerrilla wars from within the Strip's limits and then complain about the damage from the war they just initiated from within the Strip.
You mentioned Israel having its cake and eating it too? The same goes for Hamas--
They cannot simultaneously fire rockets from within Gaza's urban population and then cry foul when that urban area comes under attack...if you don't want that area to be attacked, don't attack from it. The Israelis would be more than willing to fight them elsewhere or, heck, if they'd stop rocketing, to cease fighting them period.
And I already answered the status quo point, and this is already long, so I guess I'll end this response here. :)
ESPN Streak for the Ca$h
)
)
)
)
)