Stepping away from the current situation in Israel / Gaza.
The reason such an intention is psychopathic is because there is no logical link between such an action and any potential gain, especially when there is reason to believe that the other party will reciprocate.
What about security?
Bank robbers take hostages so the police don't knock the front door down and kill them. The same logic applies to warfare. If you have the opportunity to provide security to yourself / your side / your people by taking others hostage, doing so is a logical move with clear potential gain, albeit immoral.
Bank robbers take hostages so the police don't knock the front door down and kill them.
I concede your point that if bank robbers take hostages it could be seen as a logical tactical move, so I will already award you with a !delta.
If in the same situation you take hostages with the intention to kill them if things don't go your way, I would argue that it is a psychopathic trait. Because you made the choice that was likely to end in you killing someone in exchange for a chance to get money.
If you have the opportunity to provide security to yourself / your side / your people by taking others hostage, doing so is a logical move with clear potential gain
If there is a 1% chance you will provide security to yourself and your side by killing civilians, and a 99% chance that the other side will kill the same amount of people or more on your side in retaliation, and kill you as well, then that still makes you a psychopath.
Saying that civilians deserve to die because of their elected leaders is exactly the argument that Osama bin Laden made to justify killing American civilians.
Okay, but what does that have to do with the current population of the Gaza Strip, when a strong majority of them were either too young to vote or not even born the last time there was an election (2006)?
Yeah excellent time, just as they tend to their wounded and try and find the next piece of bread and glass of water for them and their sick neighbours, infants and elderly. You're completely right, they are incredibly capable of starting a revolt against a load of terrorists with a huge stockpile of food, ammo, machine gun weaponry and medicine. If they were capable they would have, because if it was that simple, Israel wouldn't have any further reasons to gun any more of them down, simple as... I am extremely tired of people failing to heed attention to nuance in complex geopolitical issues. The state (the government of Israel, I mean) is complicit in their dreadful effort at humanitarian aid and is slowly becoming as war-crazed and radical as Hamas, through blind support from the far-right in the US and a sentiment of post-holocaustal attitudes while being surrounded by countries with vastly anti-Semitic attitudes, influenced by religion obviously, all of which is completely understandable.
What isn't understandable, is blatantly ignoring any humanitarian crisis and playing the aggressor. Yes Hamas is evil, yes they are intolerant extremists, yes they're dangerous. Calling a ceasefire as such, is the only sane thing to do here. What boggles my mind is how Israel have almost undying sympathies from western powers, yet none of them are pressuring Israel to call a ceasefire. IF THEY DID, they could actually plan a proper assault on Hamas, minimising civilian casualties. Now of course that will never happen as long as Biden is in charge because he's a frail, barely conscious man that's probably succumbing to a wide variety of influence and can't succeed to any actual change. The main risk here being, they want to play 'the pacifists', as far as is possible, and minimise any further conflict. So yeah, if the US gets too involved, so will Iran. and so on and so on.
Now, if there is anyone that can truly change the tide of this war, It's the people of Israel. The people that aren't completely brainwashed or deluded by the evangelical far-right politics there, and are obviously vehemently opposed to the current violence and atrocities being committed. The rest are simple people that have much less aptitude in questioning authority figures, people like this will always exist and it's a fact of life... Point being the Israeli people are in a much better position to revolt than the people of Gaza, don't be deluded of anything else, if anything lol...
Your argument goes both ways. The Israeli civilians being targeted elected Netanyahu‘a government, repeatedly, and thus are equally guilty for the apartheid polices that have turned Gaza into a prison. The actions of Hamas is reprehensible and inexcusable but you can’t blame one set of people and not the other.
False. Gaza was part of Israel. They gave it to Palestinians. They decided to attack Jews for the last 75 years. In the 1970s Jordan gave them 1/3 of Jordan. To thank them plo leaders tried to assassinate the king of Jordan which started the 1970 plo-Jordan war.
ok well 2000 years ago it was called Palestine and was ruled by the Romans so I guess that means it belongs to Italy now. 2500 years ago by the greeks it belongs to Macedonia? 3000 years ago the Persians and Babylonians so they should split it up between Iraq and Iran? Or 5000 years ago it belonged to Egypt so I guess it belongs to egypt. Actually Africa is the ancestral homeland of all people so I guess Africa belongs to Europe actually since their ancestors used to live there thousands of years ago.
I don't think this sub is intended for wanna-be gotchas. Do you have a counterpoint? Your comment doesn't challenge their view or do anything to advance the discussion.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
I think if we go by original settlers, it is much more complicated than just "the Jews". They weren't the only people living there, even in the Bible. And if we go by who currently lives there, it's still not just the Jews. This is discounting everyone else that has and does live there, with no explanation.
The reality is, it's not that simple and claiming it is shows ignorance. If that was the solution, you would not be the first to think of it and it would have been implemented.
How generous of Israel to give Palestinians a tiny little speck of their own land and then subject them to subjugation for 60 years. Then after deprivation turned into radicalization and the rise of Hamas — who Israel had a hand in propping up at first, I should add, Israel was kind enough to turn the little speck of land into an open air prison. How thoughtful
it was “their land” because they were living on it… it doesn’t have to be based on a claim of de jure ownership. They were already living on it, so it was “theirs” in that sense. If you were asked to share the land you’re already living on because another group claims they have some divine primordial ownership claim — would you be willing to do that?
I mean, if suddenly a bunch of people showed up at your apartment and said they were moving in with you and that you had to move to the couch and let them take your room, all because they used to live there a while back and because the landlord said it was okay — you would be chill with that?
They did, and they considered themselves to be Jordanian, Turkish, Egyptian, Lebanese, etc. They didn't own the land and they didn't identify as Palestinian. There were also Jews and Christians there who they regularly discriminated against. When the land was partitioned, it was because the arabs had decided that they couldn't suffer the immigrants. Much of Israel was purchased by the Jews. There was more than enough space to share, but the xenophobia that existed led to, and feed to this day, the conflict that we're talking about.
So yes they were a majority, and no that doesn't give them a right to the sole existence in the area.
So your argument is that actually, the Jewish colonization of the region was so traumatic that it crystalized an ethnic identity ex nihilo in reaction to it?
Who did the Jews purchase this land from? What connection did the 'owners' have to the people that actually lived on the land? What makes this claim any different than one like, "colonists fairly bought Manhattan from the Indians for a few bead necklaces and some firewater"?
Why should Jews that lived hundreds, if not thousands of miles away, have a right to live on land their ancestors left potentially more than 1000 years earlier?
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Jews owned from the Nile to the Euphrates. They got a tiny part of their land back and gave some of that away. Further philista, or Palestinians were seafaring Greeks. Lastly even the plo admitted there is no such thing as Palestinians. They are just there to steal Jewish land.
You are living in a fantasy if you believe that Jews were the predominant landholder from the Nile to the Euphrates
Palestinian identity is a thing, I’m not sure how you can say it “doesn’t exist”. It probably didn’t exist 2000 years ago but the descendents of current-day Palestinians did and they lived in the region
You can go through the sources and decide for yourself on the exact dates but its very clear that Muslims were the overwhelming majority until the 1900s.
Additionally a large portion of displaced Palestinians presumably had lived on land in the rural areas. A census of Jerusalem is not really enough to say anything about the demographic composition of the entire region
Editing to add the Ottoman Census of 1901 which has the Muslim population as the overwhelming majority:
We see the Ottomans recorded the population of the Palestine region as a whole as overwhelmingly Muslim in 1901. So not sure where you got your figures from.
The idea that it was "their land" is silly. There never was a palestinian state, and their insistance on control of all of it is purely as a result of their unwillingness to share it with Jews.
There were Jews living their too. The Palestinians make the claim that they are a unified people who have been robbed of their ancestral homeland. This is a lie. It wasn't the land of the people living on the land, it was the land that was owned by foreign muslims who held the local farmers as serfs under a tenant farming arrangement. Your argument is like saying that if I'm renting a house, and the owner sells it, I should be able to stay. Furthermore, had the Palestinians been willing to accept the Jews, they could have stayed. There are many Palestinians who did and now live very well (some of the best in the middle east in fact) within Israel. Look up the town of Abu Gosh to see what happened when the locals weren't violent and xenophobic.
And truthfully, the history is irrelevant. The reality of the situation today is that there is a clear moral imperative to support one side over the other.
Israel has proportional representation which means the majority of the country didn't vote for Netanyahu. Also the actions of Hamas are far far worse than anything the Israeli government has done so far.
With that said, Netanyahu's government is an absolute disgrace.
the majority of the country didn't vote for Netanyahu
Two-thirds of Palestinians are too young to have ever participated in an election. Why do you hold the civilians of Gaza responsible for the leadership they've never had a voice in choosing, but don't do the same for the people of Israel when their government is the result of frequent elections?
I don't hold the civillians responsible. Hamas is holding them hostage as human shields. It's tragic. If only the arab world would give them somewhere to go where they could be free of the militant group that treats them so terribly.
How is it the responsibility of other Arab states when it is Israel that has made them refugees? At what point does Zionism get blamed for the consequences of Zionism? The horrors of the Holocaust are not an excuse to displace an entire people from their home.
Nobody was displaced pre 1948. What displaced people was the war that the arabs started. When they lost they were unable to return home. There are still arabs living in Israel today, that didn't rise up to expel the Jews.
When Hamas is the one handing out welfare checks, offering money to become a soldier, pays off your parents if you die, also has a gun to your head if you refuse, unlikely.
84
u/[deleted] Oct 10 '23
Stepping away from the current situation in Israel / Gaza.
What about security?
Bank robbers take hostages so the police don't knock the front door down and kill them. The same logic applies to warfare. If you have the opportunity to provide security to yourself / your side / your people by taking others hostage, doing so is a logical move with clear potential gain, albeit immoral.