As I was reading your post, I was getting excited that someone shared views so similar to my own.
Then, I got to the last two paragraphs. Blaming the poor for a crumbling state, and suggesting that the problem doesn't start with the wealthy. Well, I disagree.
Rather than get into a drawn-out debate about the merits of various economic systems, I'll just point out that your final paragraph assumes that seized wealth would be used to cover deficit spending. I believe this assumption is not only baseless, but outright false, as most people who focus on the 1% want that money redistributed to the less-wealthy to mitigate the stratification of wealth, not use it to pay for defense spending or other forms of corporate welfare. It's not clear how decreased stratification of wealth, which is strongly correlated with positive economic outcomes, would wreak the economy.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
Now, some context:
Also, your earlier facetious comment, about BarbaraHudson being "more right" on account of having "no personal interest whatsoever in this case", do you understand how stupid it sounds?
Emphasis mine.
And finally, some grammar:
The predicate here, that something sounds stupid, has a subject of the earlier-mentioned facetious comment. Since this subject, a facetious comment, is not a person, but is instead a position that a person was maintaining, it is not true that my earlier comment constitutes an ad hominem attack.
I understand English is not everyone's native language (and it's not mine either), but perhaps you shouldn't comment about things that you don't understand?
Couldn't resist chiming in here. Your retort is terrible. What justification do you have for your ad hominem attack here?
Also, your earlier facetious comment, about BarbaraHudson being "more right" on account of having "no personal interest whatsoever in this case", do you understand how stupid it sounds? You're basically suggesting that unbiased people are less capable of having an objectively correct opinion. You're holding up bias as an indication of correctness. What the fuck?
The government can mandate you buy a product, why not a mandate to open a product. If you believe the government can force you to do an action, why not another? What makes this any different than any other government force?
Agreed. Government can do whatever we agree government can do (and, unfortunately, sometimes a good deal that we don't agree government can do, but that's a topic for another discussion). We've agreed that government can make us buy a product (I presume you're talking about medical health insurance here), and we can similarly agree that government can make us open a product (I presume you're talking about the iPhone here). We haven't yet agreed on that point, though. I think that's the issue.
Don't being a hypocrite when it comes to picking and choosing which rights you want to defend, defend them all.
Disagreed. Support for the government having an ability to mandate one thing does not imply support for the government having an ability to mandate any or all things. I really don't understand how you were modded insightful.
Hello hey!,
Here, you're highlighting the distinction between what you call entitlement programs and welfare. However, in your earlier post, you made the following claim:
You also seem to be of the delusion that the US spends a lot of money on public assistance. It spends very little. For what we paid for the Iraq war (not including nation building expenses) we could fund US public assistance programs at the current levels for 219 years.
Regardless of whether you want to put Social Security and Medicare into the "entitlement program" bucket or the "welfare" bucket, they are US public assistance programs regardless. As such, it is unlikely that the amount spent on our recent military adventures abroad (even including nation building expenses) would cover anywhere near 219 years of funding at current levels.
I oppose wasting money on military blunders, and I support expanding public assistance programs, but let's not build our arguments in favor of such policies upon a foundation of falsehoods.
In the context of the double standard (which is not the context of my original statement about Hamas' charter's relevance), this is a perfect example of the double standard, as described in my first post in this thread. Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of [the state of] Israel. Israeli legislation calls for the destruction of Hamas. And yet here we have Hamas being demonized, and Israel's stance being overlooked, despite both calling for the destruction of the other.
Your reasoning makes no sense to me. In order to better understand it, please answer a hypothetical. Suppose a group was formed in the USA that calls for the armed overthrowing of the federal government, backed by actual acts of violence. Suppose the FBI declares the group illegal. Would you say the same reasoning applies, with the same conclusion, here? Would you say any attempt to portrait one side as right is a double standard?
If not, please explain what makes Hamas vs. Israel different, in your eyes. If you think the hypothetical lacks details that are needed for you to answer, please add the missing details that would drive you to claim the same double standard applies to this example.
Yes, I would say the same reasoning applies, with the same conclusion. I would say that any attempt to portray one side as right, but not the other side, would be evidence of a double standard being applied. And rightfully so - the justification for this double standard is the fact that the FBI's authority is based in popular support in a democratic state, and presumably your hypothetical armed group's authority is not. There very much is one standard against which we evaluate agents of the state, and another against which we evaluate individuals that are not acting on behalf of the state, and to deny this is to deny reality. This is why we do not prosecute executioners for manslaughter.
That being said, sometimes there is justification for using two different standards for evaluating the actions of two different parties, as in the case of your hypothetical example, where the two parties really are qualitatively different in a way that can be articulated. Sometimes there is no justification, but two different standards are used anyway, wrongly. I've been arguing that it is plainly obvious that the actions of Israel and the actions of Hamas are evaluated against two different standards (in ways that I've explicitly noted). Now, it is possible that this double standard is justified (though I don't think so), but I haven't seen that argument raised.
The "retaliation" point, the "targeting" point, the "warnings" point, neither party is free of culpability here,
That is only true if we accept your interpretation of the facts as the only correct interpretation. I think even you will agree that what constitute "warning, "retaliation" and "targeting" is a highly disputed subject. Are you seriously claiming that yours is the only possible correct laying out of the facts?
Regarding the retaliation point, it is objectively factual that Israel has stated [some non-negligible proportion of] their attacks on Gaza are a response to their perception of Hamas' rocket/mortar fire, tunneling, or other hostile actions, and it is objectively factual that Hamas has stated [some non-negligible proportion of] their attacks on Israel are a response to their perception of Israel's continued exercise of de-facto sovereignty over historically non-Israeli territory.
Regarding the targeting point, it is objectively factual that Israel does not abstain from violence despite knowing its weapons lack the precision and accuracy to guarantee absence of collateral damage, and it is objectively factual that Hamas does not abstain from violence despite knowing its weapons lack the precision and accuracy to guarantee absence of collateral damage.
Regarding the warnings point, it is objectively factual that Israel drops leaflets war
Last I heard, there was various HUMINT (some HCS-O) on the server, which is classified from the moment it starts existing, without any classification authority needing to be involved. But, hey, maybe someone else improperly declassified it before putting it on Hillary's server, so there's still a chance that she isn't the one to blame, right?
This is a fucking embarassment to anyone that holds a security clearance.
Whether or not Hamas faces an existential threat is only tangentially related to its charter. Its charter is not the proximate cause for its existence being threatened, the IDF is. Whether or not Hamas' charter is in turn responsible for Israel's threats is immaterial to this point. I'm open to having a separate conversation about their charter, but I don't think it's relevant to the double-standard point I've been trying to make.
I do not see how it is irrelevant.
You are claiming double standard. That's a very high bar to pass. You need to show not that as far as you're concerned, the two are equivalent. You need to show that as far as anyone reasonable is concerned, that is the case. As I said in the very first sentence of my very first response, it's all about intent. Hamas charter and public statements are as indicative of its intent as its actions.
You are free to not consider it as relevant, but you cannot claim no one should. If not because it is morally correct and mandated by common sense, then accept it as a legitimate consideration because that is the criteria that international law uses.
Again, whether or not Hamas faces an existential threat is only tangentially related to its charter. Whether or not there is a double standard is related to Hamas' charter. Hamas facing an existential threat is not the same thing as a double standard being applied when comparing Israel and Hamas. Hamas' charter is relevant in the context of a statement about the double standard. It is not relevant in the context of a statement about Hamas facing an existential threat.
In the context of the double standard (which is not the context of my original statement about Hamas' charter's relevance), this is a perfect example of the double standard, as described in my first post in this thread. Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of [the state of] Israel. Israeli legislation calls for the destruction of Hamas. And yet here we have Hamas being demonized, and Israel's stance being overlooked, despite both calling for the destruction of the other.
That's the (arguably pedantic but logically sound) point I was trying to make.
It is not pedantic. It is deliberately blind. I've actually already answered that point, but I'll repeat myself: The no-retaliation option is not open to Israel, because:
A. Israel has tried it for over six years, with no positive outcome. It would be immoral to suggest Israel should continue to do something which does not work.
B. It is morally reprehensible for a government to abandon its citizens like that
You are merely suggesting that Israel do another reprehensible thing instead of that one.
I disagree with your statement that the no-retaliation option is not open to Israel, and neither of your stated reasons support that statement. They support a much weaker statement: that the no-retaliation option is not acceptable for Israel. However, I said as much myself, when I made explicit "however, that wouldn't be reasonable, and that's not expected of even the most selfless societies". The fact that such an option is not reasonable does not mean it is not possible.
Furthermore, I submit this as the second example of the double standard in your post. You claim that it Israel cannot abandon its violent struggle against Hamas (whether this is because this would not stop the violence or whether it is because they have a duty to their citizenry or whether for other reasons), but you deny these same sympathies to Hamas. Is it not true that despite abandoning violent resistance, the West Bank has no more sovereignty today than they did before they adopted a moderate stance, and so their policy didn't work? Consequently, would it not be immoral to suggest Hamas should do something which does not work? Is it not true that it would be reprehensible for Hamas to abandon its citizens' popular desire to resist Israel? Yo
First, I'll admit that there was too much hyperbole in my last post. "Morally bankrupt" was a bad choice of words.
Second, I'll concede that I agree with your characterization of Hamas' goals.
I lost you. You concede that Hamas is not only deliberately firing at Israeli non-involved, but using Palestinian non-involved as, literally, cannon fodder, and yet you say:
it is Hamas that faces the existential threat. And while that shouldn't justify their reprehensible actions, it should at least put them in context.
Except Hamas core charter is reprehensible. From your claim to another poster that Hamas is against Israel, and not against Jews, I deduct you have not read it [yale.edu]. Statements specifically againt Israel are, in fact, quite scarce there. Statements against Jews, not so much. Choice quote for emphasis (but it is far from being the only example):
Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people. "May the cowards never sleep."
I did not concede that "Hamas is... deliberately firing at Israeli non-involved" in the statement quoted here. I conceded that (in your own words) "Hamas has two main goals that it is trying to gain with firing at Israel. The first has to do with internal politics. It is firing, because the Palestinian society, for reasons that have a lot to do with Hamas, sees not firing as surrendering to Israel. The second reason Hamas opens fire is in order to trigger Israel's response, thus causing civilian Palestinian casualties." This statement was about Hamas' goals, not their actions.
While I think I understand your desire to increase the scope of this discussion to Hamas' charter (which I have indeed read and commented about extensively on slashdot), I'm not sure how that's relevant in this context. Whether or not Hamas faces an existential threat is only tangentially related to its charter. Its charter is not the proximate cause for its existence being threatened, the IDF is. Whether or not Hamas' charter is in turn responsible for Israel's threats is immaterial to this point. I'm open to having a separate conversation about their charter, but I don't think it's relevant to the double-standard point I've been trying to make.
So a racist fanatical organization with a reprehensible charter is doing reprehensible things. You claim it is because Israel has the means to destroy it. Sadly, I think you are wrong. Either way, I think your "context" is a little narrow.
That's not accurate. I claim that Hamas (a racist fanatical organization with a reprehensible charter) is doing reprehensible things for the two reasons you stated earlier (among others): maintaining a public image of resistance (for domestic consumption) and also as PR events to garner sympathy (for international consumption). I claim that Hamas faces an existential threat because Israel has the means (and has expressed a desire) to destroy it. These are two separate issues which you seem to be conflating here.
Third, I'd like to address two related points you made, but in a much abbreviated form as compared against my previous word salad that slashdot ate:
Israel's actions are no more reprehensible than one can possibly expect under the objective circumstances demand
So, if you want to substantiate your claim, what I'd like to hear from you is how you think Israel should have handled things. What would a non-morally bankrupt version of Israel do in its place?
I'll just say that I agree with the first of these statements, and that I think Israel should have handled things as they have, for the most part. Perhaps in the wake of Rabin's death they could've really stayed committed to the two state thing, done a bit more to combat settlers in the West Bank.
Would the names Notre Dame, Alabama or Oregon State carry any cachet outside local areas if it weren't for their football teams?
I don't follow amateur sports at all, but I know Oregon State for their Open Source Labs which host the Apache Software Foundation, the Linux Foundation, etc.
Also, it's sad that a low six-digit UID on slashdot only knows OSU for their handegg team.
I wrote up a long reply, but then slashdot ate it.
First, I'll admit that there was too much hyperbole in my last post. "Morally bankrupt" was a bad choice of words.
Second, I'll concede that I agree with your characterization of Hamas' goals.
Third, I'd like to address two related points you made, but in a much abbreviated form as compared against my previous word salad that slashdot ate:
Israel's actions are no more reprehensible than one can possibly expect under the objective circumstances demand
So, if you want to substantiate your claim, what I'd like to hear from you is how you think Israel should have handled things. What would a non-morally bankrupt version of Israel do in its place?
So, remember that I just wrote this up, all nice and well-phrased. I'm not doing that again, and for that I apologize in advance.
I'll just say that I agree with the first of these statements, and that I think Israel should have handled things as they have, for the most part. Perhaps in the wake of Rabin's death they could've really stayed committed to the two state thing, done a bit more to combat settlers in the West Bank. The few failures that they did see seem unavoidable to me, and not systemic either way. The human shields thing, you're always going to have a few assholes in any military. It's not like it was a policy advocated for by the top brass. But either way, these are small potatoes.
The important part of your first point here, though, is the "can possibly expect under the objective circumstances" bit. Without that, one might say that Israel's actions could be less reprehensible if they went the 100% non-violent route, and refused to retaliate in any capacity. However, that wouldn't be reasonable, and that's not expected of even the most selfless societies. By general international standards, retaliatory violence seems to be sanctioned, and whether or not it is reprehensible at this point seems to be a matter of debate. It's generally agreed upon that any response ought to be proportionate, so consequently in the case of an existential threat, pretty much anything goes. This is why Israel was able to allay concerns over its nuclear weapons program by offering a credible promise to not be the first to use them. But today, with Israel openly calling for its destruction (and having the means to bring it about), it is Hamas that faces the existential threat. And while that shouldn't justify their reprehensible actions, it should at least put them in context.
I would just like people to consider for a moment that, had earlier military conflicts turned out differently, the people that today offer an uneasy defense of (or are at least unwilling to demonize) Hamas' indiscriminate rocket fire and suicide bombings might instead be defending Israel's use of nuclear weapons in their own existential fight. Because it very much is a matter of context and circumstances.
On the one hand, I'll semi-agree with you that the article is totally vapid (without having even read it!), but on the other hand, that doesn't mean the discussion won't be valuable regardless. After all, articles on slashdot are really more useful to guide conversation to a particular topic than as actual content to be read. Here we are, talking about Trump's participation in the GOP's primary, all in good cheer. We don't need to talk about his tweets, we can talk about anything!
I'll chip in my contribution: Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, has written extensively about Trump's candidacy. As a student of persuasion science (hypnotism, etc.), Adams looks at Trump through a unique lens, and I've found his writings truly insightful.
The U3 rate only looks at employed individuals and those currently looking for work. The U6 rate includes those who are unemployed and willing to work but not looking for work and have looked for work in the past twelve months as well as those who are currently employed part-time due to part-time employment not always being able to provide enough income to support the household adequately.
U3 does not include individuals that have been unemployed for over 2 years but are still currently looking for work.
It seems that the government believes that it it is literally not possible to look for work for two years and still not find it. Basically, they've defined "looking for work" as "able to find work within two years", and I disagree with this stance.
While we're out here promoting our opinions on the subject of slashdot's Politics section, I'd like to throw my dissenting opinion into the ring.
While you're certainly right that many stories under the Politics section indeed have little to nothing to do with news for nerds, oftentimes they still focus on stuff that matters. Many slashdotters come here not for the tech-focused stories [see also: rtfa], but to enjoy reasoned discussion with their nerdy brethren. See, for example, I cite a post I made the other day, about an admittedly controversial subject: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That subject is no better of a fit for the themes slashdot tends to focus on than is this Trump story, but check it out. That discussion went on for days while staying shockingly civil, levelheaded, objective (particularly the thread with Sun, for which I'm still working on a conciliatory reply). I don't know of many other forums for online discussion where this is even plausible, and that is the reason I encourage the new ownership to not abandon one of the few remaining outlets for such dialog.
tl;dr: Politics on slashdot is awesome because it's still possible to have discussions rooted in reason. At least until the libertarians come out. (I kid, I kid...... but seriously:P)
What qualification? I don't see anything being corrected, I see you repeating what I had said myself. Either way, you haven't clarified what this even has to do with the subject being discussed.
yes, now, gaza is not the same thing as hamas. if you were to say, hamas called for the destruction of the conservative movement. or called for a coup d'etat in israel by the arabic minority. you'd have something. If hamas weren't a thing, israel would keep chugging along, if israel didn't exist neither would hamas.
I see a collection of words, but I'm not sure that they're strung together in any meaningful sense. No, Gaza is not the same thing as Hamas. One is a geographical area, and the other is a political state. Hamas is calling for an end to Israel (the political state), not Israel (the geographical area). This should be obvious to anyone that understands that it is not feasible to end the existence of a geographical area. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the latter part of your statement. If Hamas didn't exist, Israel would continue to exist, and if Israel didn't exist, neither would Hamas? Aside from this statement being vague to the point of meaninglessness, it's not even clear what basis you have for making it.
no, since they're only accused of committing war crimes relatively infrequently, it can't be their intent. unless they're incompetent at killing civilians.
While you're certainly entitled to your opinion, I don't understand why you're presenting it here as fact. It's certainly not impossible for a state to intentionally commit war crimes relatively infrequently while simultaneously being competent (whatever that means in this context) at killing civilians. I cite the United States as a counterexample to your claim.
for that particular accusation yes.
This too is not based on a rational argument, and as such, is yet another opinion.
i'm almost done because this seems pointless.
Indeed, sharing one's opinions often is.
regardless, if you're going to compare the two, actually compare the two. war-crimes are a legal definition that the international community has agreed to, with the actual realities of war at the back of their minds. They also reflect the moral stance that the global community takes on the ubiquity of collateral damage in a war.
Are you saying that by comparing the two, I'm not actually comparing the two? I'm not sure what that even means. Furthermore, I'd like to correct you and say that war crimes are not "a legal definition", they're actions carried out during the conduct of a war that violate accepted international rules of war. I'm not sure what the rest of the rhetoric was intended to convey. Something about war crimes being bad?
I'm not sure how any of your latest response has been related to the discussion I was hoping to have about a double standard being applied to the actions of Israel and Hamas, but I commend you for your interest in the subject nonetheless.
summary execution of dissidents and accused peoples without trial is also indicative that it's no longer really holds to "democratically elected" any more. that term falls away i believe once expected elections are not being held.
Come on, seriously? I myself pointed out the questionable current standing of the current Hamas administration. No need to "correct" me.
yeah, if by that you mean that they unilaterally withdrew all physical presence from gaza. at most israel is calling for establishing a puppet state. more realistically, just a government that can treat its own population however it wants, and isn't actively trying to kill israeli civilians. i don't think they conquered jordan or egypt and they're pretty happy with those neighbors.
Israel is calling for the end of Hamas, Hamas is calling for the end of Israel. There are those who falsely paint Hamas' stance as a call for death to all Jews, much like there are those who falsely paint Israel's stance as a desire to kill all Palestinians. If you can say with a straight face that Israel is "at most" calling for "establishing a puppet state", then I can say the same about Hamas. To disagree that both sides are being disingenuous is to support the double standard which I complain about. Comparing Israel's relationship with Jordan and Egypt to their relationship with the Palestinians is also absurd - there is a sovereign Egyptian state, there is a sovereign Jordanian state, and there is no sovereign Palestinian state.
sometimes appealing to the authority of others is all we can do, i'm nowhere near able to collect my own information after all. i'm appealing to the fact that the worst the UN has to complain about, not vote on so the security council doesn't really come into play, is a handful of instances. unrwa is unique, the UN bitches non-stop about israel, and the UN human rights council is stocked with countries that delight at pointing at israel to distract from their own human rights violations.
You alleged that for the most part, the bombs dropped by Israel have stood to legitimate international scrutiny. I pointed out how they have been denounced for their military campaigns by international organizations. The conversation has devolved to "organization X says they're okay", "but organization Y says they're horrible". Since your original statement was rather vague ("for the most part", lack of quantifiers, etc.), there's no sense in debating this point further.
and we're still talking only a handful of "maybes" out of thousands of bombs dropped. or do you think UNRWA and the UN human rights council are covering for israel too?
It's this willingness to overlook Israel's transgressions that encourages accusations of bias. So, since they only commit war crimes occasionally, they're beyond criticizing?
white phosphorous is legal under international law in many situations. just never against civilian targets, or from the air onto military targets in civilian zones apparently. and the IDF decided the ass-ache wasn't worth it so forewent using it this time round.
So, they took a break from committing this particular war crime, and now they're beyond reproach?
by your stance, there's very little difference between the stances of north korea and south. just two sides with a disagreement.
As far as I know, indeed, there's very little difference. They both threaten each other with mass violence in retaliation for perceived aggressions. The only reason this might seem like an absurd proposition to you is that, based on your worldview, you don't think it is possible for DPRK to reasonably perceive RK as aggressive. You see DPRK as aggressive, and RK as merely arming itself to defend against DPRK threats. However, from the other side, it's just the opposite. DPRK is arming itself to defend against RK threats. This inability to acknowledge that different sides are likely to perceive the situation through their own lens of bias, rightly or wrongly, isn't likely to lead you to particularly insightful observations.
First the easy part of the answer. Qasam 3 has a range of 16 kilometers. According to this article (enhanced map) the missiles beyond that range are not Qassam (in particular, the M75 you mention is also called Fajr-5, and is produced in Iran).
Today I learned. Although, The commander of the Iranian Guard said that Iran did not supply Gaza with a Fajr-5 missile but transferred the technology to manufacture it to the Palestinians. Not that this materially affects your point - just adding it in as an aside.
As for everything else: While I participated in enough discussions here to be appreciative of the fact that this discussion has not deteriorated to name calling and ad hominem attacks, and for that I really do feel I should commend you, I still feel we are failing to communicate on some really fundamental level. It feels to me like you are set in your opinion that the sides are morally equivalent, and are searching everything I say for evidence to support that conclusion, rather than examine the evidence set in order to reach the most likely conclusion. In particular, I am failing to impress the concept that choosing to target civilians is different than having to target civilians due to them being in the way to military objective.
Several points, here. First, I don't intend to portray both sides as morally equivalent - I seek to portray both sides as not being held to the same standard. Both sides don't need to be morally equivalent to be morally reprehensible. There is this sense that any criticism of Israel is intended to say they're "worse than" Hamas or something along those lines. I disagree with that wholeheartedly. Israel being terrible and Hamas being terrible are two distinct issues and should be treated as such. Second, you speak of examining the evidence set in order to reach the most likely conclusion. That's at odds with my usual approach - limiting discussion to facts and their necessary (not likely, but necessary) implications. Once we reduce conversation to likelihoods and opinions, particularly regarding a subject as thorny as this, we're not likely to reach any sort of agreement. Third, while you highlight my unwillingness to accept the difference between choosing to target civilian and having to target civilians due to them being in the way to military objective, you're really missing my point. Aside from really twisting the word 'target' to fit this context (by your definition, was the Semperoper "targeted" during the bombing of Dresden?), you're effectively looking at two reprehensible things and suggesting that the less reprehensible one is totally okay since they're not as bad as the other. I believe that's not justified by reason.
I can only shake my head in disbelief. I feel like nothing I have tried to say made any impact. That thing you say I was not trying to say is precisely what I actually was trying to say. Hamas fires whether there is a military target in range or not. As such, claiming that when there happens to be a military target somewhere in range, then it was targeting that, is simply apologetic. The very fact that they will fire whether there is a military target in range or not is proof positive that targeting military isn't what they're after.
I did re-read what you wrote, and while this may be what you were trying to say (indeed, I said as much myself), it's not what you were actually saying. That's why I brought it up myself, in an effort to infer what you might have been trying to say. I understand that this can seem somewhat pedantic, so I'll take this opportunity to apologize for splitting hairs - it's a prominent part of my personality that many find annoying. In my defense, I see it as insisting on precision in language and my intent isn't merely to frustrate. Either way, regarding the actual issue of Hamas firing on civilians in the absence of valid military targets, I don't understand how you can mistake my words for support or apologism. I
1. hrm, wasn't sure of the particulars, but I'm going to make a judgement call. I would say the destruction of a marginally democratic state is less preferable than the destruction of a largely tyrannical one.
The discussion I was trying to have was more of a close look at facts than an exchange of subjective opinions. What you (or I) find preferable isn't really relevant in that context.
the last election in gaza was the one that put hamas into power after all.
Yes, Hamas was the democratically elected government of Gaza, in an election that international observers generally agree was free and fair. Of course, since then, Hamas has basically suspended any meaningful sense of democracy, so their current reign may or may not have any sort of mandate from the population at large, but again, we seem to be drifting quite far from the original topic of the double standard as it relates to hostilities between Hamas and Israel.
also, i would say that the hamas charter is slightly more ambitious, it also calls for setting up an explicitly islamic state after the destruction of israel. i think that's called conquering.
Indeed. Of course, Israel also openly calls for the destruction of Hamas and openly supports the installation of a regime friendly to Western interests. Isn't that also called conquering? Or, is this yet another example of the double standard at work?
2. yes, because for the large part the bombs dropped by israel have stood to international scrutiny. Like legitimate international scrutiny. The civilian to militant casualty ratios are in keeping with or better than any other urban conflict.
By legitimate international scrutiny, you mean global outrage (legitimate or not) that is only blunted by the US's vetoes on the UN's Security Council? But, appeals to authority really aren't relevant in a discussion that's intended to stay rational. There's really no way to argue that use of white phosphorous stands up to legitimate international scrutiny any more than Hamas' rockets do.
Literally nobody is saying the hamas rockets aren't war crimes, every single one of them is; recognized by the UN when they deem to mention them at all. People debate whether a dozen out of a thousand bombs dropped by israel are beyond the pale, and when they do they are not asking whether they targetted the civilian population rather than a military one for the most part, they are asking whether or not the military target warranted the number of civilian casualties.
If by literally you mean figuratively, then sure. It's quite likely that Hamas themselves are saying that their own rockets aren't war crimes, regardless of whether they say this earnestly or not. Either way, again, nobody is denying that what Hamas is doing is wrong. The issue that I'm talking about assumes this as an axiom, even. My point is that there is a double standard that is applied when comparing Hamas' actions against Israel's, and your own statements demonstrate that better than I could myself.
More information needed. The three rockets fired from Gaza in July 2014 that struck around Ben Gurion International Airport near Tel Aviv were Qassam M75 rockets. It's not clear why you think Tel Aviv is out of Qassam's range.
Maybe not for their missiles, but definitely for their mortars. Please re-read what I said. They are perfectly capable of aiming mortars, and they do so at civilian areas. I am extrapolating to say if they target civilians with their aimable weapons, there is no reason to assume they are not doing so with their non-aimable weapons. All of this is, of course, assuming that we ignore (which you seem to be doing, for some reason) their intent as clearly stated by Hamas leaders in every opportunity.
I see no evidence that, given the choice between aiming mortars at military targets or civilian targets, they choose civilian targets. There is evidence that, in the absence of military targets, they aim mortars at civilian targets, but that's not the claim you appear to be making here. If you indeed did mean to accuse Hamas of attacking civilian targets when there are no military targets available, I can't argue against this accusation, as it is accurate to the best of my knowledge. That being said, this is not the same as choosing civilian targets over military ones. Regarding public statements made by Hamas leadership, I see no reason to assume that these are factual statements about intent or necessarily indicative TTPs, as their primary role is one of propaganda.
What I am saying is that there is a high correlation between periods in which you see reports claiming that Hamas is not interested in escalation right now with rockets falling in open fields. I am not using the mere fact of open fields falls as proof. I am claiming that the correlation suggest intent. It also suggests intent to the contrary.
I'm unaware of such correlation. I'm well aware that Hamas' rocket fire from Gaza sometimes dwindles dramatically, and sometimes escalates dramatically, in line with the political situation there. I'm aware that rocket fire in general decreases when Hamas is not interested in escalation, but I've seen no evidence of rocket "misses" increasing during these times as well. I'd be very much interested in seeing any sort of study of this alleged phenomenon.
Suppose Hamas stops shooting at Israel. What would happen? I claim that would would happen is that Israel would not be shooting at Gaza, and if the quiet continued for longer periods, the siege on Gaza would gradually lift.
This is an entirely baseless assumption. Let us use the West Bank as a case study for what happens when Palestinians abandon violent resistance and instead acquiesce to the demands of the occupying powers. Instead of leaving them alone or allowing them to form a sovereign state, Israel continues supporting policies of oppression and slow annexation. Currently, 18% of the West Bank (by land area) enjoys some limited amount of autonomy (Area A), while the rest (Areas B and C) are policed by Israel. Even Area A is still subject to IDF raids, implying that the entirety of the West Bank is still under the full military authority of Israel. Suppose Hamas does stop shooting at Israel. Why do you expect Palestinians there would fare any better than those in the West Bank?
So, no, Israel does not have the option to simply not fire. Israel's commitment to its own residents safety is higher than its commitment not to harm civilians in Gaza. Hamas can provide no such justification, as Hamas choosing not to fire will decrease, not increase, the risk to Gaza's residents.
And similarly, does Hamas not have an obligation to combat the occupying forces, even at great cost of human life? If Israel is justified in accepting civilian casualties in order to protect the Israeli state, is Hamas not justified in accepting civilian casualties in order to protect the nascent Palestinian state? Why is it assumed that it's entirely reasonable to expect Hamas to simply give up the fight against Israel in the name of saving civilian lives, but so unreasonable to expect the same of Israel?
The actual warning does not make the punching okay. If, however, the punching is already okay, then the warning makes the difference between intent to cause harm and incidental harm. As I told you elsewhere, intent is everything in those matters.
So, justified retaliatory strikes are okay? Like, when Hamas launches rockets into Israel, it's okay for Israel to retaliate with force. And when Israel imposes a blockade on Gaza, it's okay for Hamas to retaliate with force. Or, is there more of a, shall we say, double standard?
Israel, for the most part, is hitting civilian targets only when there is a valid military reason to do so (there are some cases that seem genuinely at odds with that statement, but they are the exceptions, not the rule). As far as both international law and the standard that just about any other army in the world employs, that is the end of the story. Israel takes the extra step of warning the civilians at that location to clear out, so that they do not get hurt.
As I said before, these same things can be said of Hamas. Also, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that you're suggesting that there can be a valid military reason for hitting civilian targets. However, it appears that you only believe this is the case when Israeal is attacking Gaza, and not the other way around. This makes it seem like you have one standard for the IDF, and another for Hamas.
The advance warning is not what makes striking someone's home legitimate. The fact that Hamas was storing missiles in that home is what made striking it legitimate. The warning is what makes complaints against Israel about killing civilians absurd at best and malicious propaganda at worst. Just about any other army in the world would classify that home as a legitimate military target and bomb it. In any other army but the IDF, it is considered bad tactical policy to let a target know in advance that it is about to be hit.
Ah, the "it's retaliatory" argument! If you read my original post in this thread, you'll find that I already addressed how both sides can (and do) claim their actions are retaliatory and provoked by instigation from the other side. Also, on the subject of the "absurdity" of Israel's killing of civilians, you might want to read all of the accounts written by IDF soldiers, which you dismiss as propaganda, about the systemic use of Palestinian civilians human shields in the IDF. It's the unwillingness by people to take a critical look at both sides which only further escalates this issue.
I hope it is clear to you why I find this sentence completely and utterly incorrect.
Slashdot Mirror
It's great. Congratulations on being one step closer to English proficiency.
Now, back to the original subject, where you're holding up bias as an indication of correctness. Can you explain your reasoning there?
As I was reading your post, I was getting excited that someone shared views so similar to my own.
Then, I got to the last two paragraphs. Blaming the poor for a crumbling state, and suggesting that the problem doesn't start with the wealthy. Well, I disagree.
Rather than get into a drawn-out debate about the merits of various economic systems, I'll just point out that your final paragraph assumes that seized wealth would be used to cover deficit spending. I believe this assumption is not only baseless, but outright false, as most people who focus on the 1% want that money redistributed to the less-wealthy to mitigate the stratification of wealth, not use it to pay for defense spending or other forms of corporate welfare. It's not clear how decreased stratification of wealth, which is strongly correlated with positive economic outcomes, would wreak the economy.
ad hominem, adv. adj.,
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
Now, some context:
Also, your earlier facetious comment, about BarbaraHudson being "more right" on account of having "no personal interest whatsoever in this case", do you understand how stupid it sounds?
Emphasis mine.
And finally, some grammar:
The predicate here, that something sounds stupid, has a subject of the earlier-mentioned facetious comment. Since this subject, a facetious comment, is not a person, but is instead a position that a person was maintaining, it is not true that my earlier comment constitutes an ad hominem attack.
I understand English is not everyone's native language (and it's not mine either), but perhaps you shouldn't comment about things that you don't understand?
Syndicate was a great game.
Couldn't resist chiming in here. Your retort is terrible. What justification do you have for your ad hominem attack here?
Also, your earlier facetious comment, about BarbaraHudson being "more right" on account of having "no personal interest whatsoever in this case", do you understand how stupid it sounds? You're basically suggesting that unbiased people are less capable of having an objectively correct opinion. You're holding up bias as an indication of correctness. What the fuck?
The government can mandate you buy a product, why not a mandate to open a product. If you believe the government can force you to do an action, why not another? What makes this any different than any other government force?
Agreed. Government can do whatever we agree government can do (and, unfortunately, sometimes a good deal that we don't agree government can do, but that's a topic for another discussion). We've agreed that government can make us buy a product (I presume you're talking about medical health insurance here), and we can similarly agree that government can make us open a product (I presume you're talking about the iPhone here). We haven't yet agreed on that point, though. I think that's the issue.
Don't being a hypocrite when it comes to picking and choosing which rights you want to defend, defend them all.
Disagreed. Support for the government having an ability to mandate one thing does not imply support for the government having an ability to mandate any or all things. I really don't understand how you were modded insightful.
You also seem to be of the delusion that the US spends a lot of money on public assistance. It spends very little. For what we paid for the Iraq war (not including nation building expenses) we could fund US public assistance programs at the current levels for 219 years.
Regardless of whether you want to put Social Security and Medicare into the "entitlement program" bucket or the "welfare" bucket, they are US public assistance programs regardless. As such, it is unlikely that the amount spent on our recent military adventures abroad (even including nation building expenses) would cover anywhere near 219 years of funding at current levels.
I oppose wasting money on military blunders, and I support expanding public assistance programs, but let's not build our arguments in favor of such policies upon a foundation of falsehoods.
In the context of the double standard (which is not the context of my original statement about Hamas' charter's relevance), this is a perfect example of the double standard, as described in my first post in this thread. Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of [the state of] Israel. Israeli legislation calls for the destruction of Hamas. And yet here we have Hamas being demonized, and Israel's stance being overlooked, despite both calling for the destruction of the other.
Your reasoning makes no sense to me. In order to better understand it, please answer a hypothetical. Suppose a group was formed in the USA that calls for the armed overthrowing of the federal government, backed by actual acts of violence. Suppose the FBI declares the group illegal. Would you say the same reasoning applies, with the same conclusion, here? Would you say any attempt to portrait one side as right is a double standard? If not, please explain what makes Hamas vs. Israel different, in your eyes. If you think the hypothetical lacks details that are needed for you to answer, please add the missing details that would drive you to claim the same double standard applies to this example.
Yes, I would say the same reasoning applies, with the same conclusion. I would say that any attempt to portray one side as right, but not the other side, would be evidence of a double standard being applied. And rightfully so - the justification for this double standard is the fact that the FBI's authority is based in popular support in a democratic state, and presumably your hypothetical armed group's authority is not. There very much is one standard against which we evaluate agents of the state, and another against which we evaluate individuals that are not acting on behalf of the state, and to deny this is to deny reality. This is why we do not prosecute executioners for manslaughter.
That being said, sometimes there is justification for using two different standards for evaluating the actions of two different parties, as in the case of your hypothetical example, where the two parties really are qualitatively different in a way that can be articulated. Sometimes there is no justification, but two different standards are used anyway, wrongly. I've been arguing that it is plainly obvious that the actions of Israel and the actions of Hamas are evaluated against two different standards (in ways that I've explicitly noted). Now, it is possible that this double standard is justified (though I don't think so), but I haven't seen that argument raised.
The "retaliation" point, the "targeting" point, the "warnings" point, neither party is free of culpability here,
That is only true if we accept your interpretation of the facts as the only correct interpretation. I think even you will agree that what constitute "warning, "retaliation" and "targeting" is a highly disputed subject. Are you seriously claiming that yours is the only possible correct laying out of the facts?
Regarding the retaliation point, it is objectively factual that Israel has stated [some non-negligible proportion of] their attacks on Gaza are a response to their perception of Hamas' rocket/mortar fire, tunneling, or other hostile actions, and it is objectively factual that Hamas has stated [some non-negligible proportion of] their attacks on Israel are a response to their perception of Israel's continued exercise of de-facto sovereignty over historically non-Israeli territory.
Regarding the targeting point, it is objectively factual that Israel does not abstain from violence despite knowing its weapons lack the precision and accuracy to guarantee absence of collateral damage, and it is objectively factual that Hamas does not abstain from violence despite knowing its weapons lack the precision and accuracy to guarantee absence of collateral damage.
Regarding the warnings point, it is objectively factual that Israel drops leaflets war
Last I heard, there was various HUMINT (some HCS-O) on the server, which is classified from the moment it starts existing, without any classification authority needing to be involved. But, hey, maybe someone else improperly declassified it before putting it on Hillary's server, so there's still a chance that she isn't the one to blame, right?
This is a fucking embarassment to anyone that holds a security clearance.
Whether or not Hamas faces an existential threat is only tangentially related to its charter. Its charter is not the proximate cause for its existence being threatened, the IDF is. Whether or not Hamas' charter is in turn responsible for Israel's threats is immaterial to this point. I'm open to having a separate conversation about their charter, but I don't think it's relevant to the double-standard point I've been trying to make.
I do not see how it is irrelevant.
You are claiming double standard. That's a very high bar to pass. You need to show not that as far as you're concerned, the two are equivalent. You need to show that as far as anyone reasonable is concerned, that is the case. As I said in the very first sentence of my very first response, it's all about intent. Hamas charter and public statements are as indicative of its intent as its actions.
You are free to not consider it as relevant, but you cannot claim no one should. If not because it is morally correct and mandated by common sense, then accept it as a legitimate consideration because that is the criteria that international law uses.
Again, whether or not Hamas faces an existential threat is only tangentially related to its charter. Whether or not there is a double standard is related to Hamas' charter. Hamas facing an existential threat is not the same thing as a double standard being applied when comparing Israel and Hamas. Hamas' charter is relevant in the context of a statement about the double standard. It is not relevant in the context of a statement about Hamas facing an existential threat.
In the context of the double standard (which is not the context of my original statement about Hamas' charter's relevance), this is a perfect example of the double standard, as described in my first post in this thread. Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of [the state of] Israel. Israeli legislation calls for the destruction of Hamas. And yet here we have Hamas being demonized, and Israel's stance being overlooked, despite both calling for the destruction of the other.
That's the (arguably pedantic but logically sound) point I was trying to make.
It is not pedantic. It is deliberately blind. I've actually already answered that point, but I'll repeat myself: The no-retaliation option is not open to Israel, because:
A. Israel has tried it for over six years, with no positive outcome. It would be immoral to suggest Israel should continue to do something which does not work.
B. It is morally reprehensible for a government to abandon its citizens like that
You are merely suggesting that Israel do another reprehensible thing instead of that one.
I disagree with your statement that the no-retaliation option is not open to Israel, and neither of your stated reasons support that statement. They support a much weaker statement: that the no-retaliation option is not acceptable for Israel. However, I said as much myself, when I made explicit "however, that wouldn't be reasonable, and that's not expected of even the most selfless societies". The fact that such an option is not reasonable does not mean it is not possible.
Furthermore, I submit this as the second example of the double standard in your post. You claim that it Israel cannot abandon its violent struggle against Hamas (whether this is because this would not stop the violence or whether it is because they have a duty to their citizenry or whether for other reasons), but you deny these same sympathies to Hamas. Is it not true that despite abandoning violent resistance, the West Bank has no more sovereignty today than they did before they adopted a moderate stance, and so their policy didn't work? Consequently, would it not be immoral to suggest Hamas should do something which does not work? Is it not true that it would be reprehensible for Hamas to abandon its citizens' popular desire to resist Israel? Yo
The only reason why maths is hard is adults keep telling children that it's hard.
You have two choices:
Math is hard.
Maths are hard.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
First, I'll admit that there was too much hyperbole in my last post. "Morally bankrupt" was a bad choice of words.
Second, I'll concede that I agree with your characterization of Hamas' goals.
I lost you. You concede that Hamas is not only deliberately firing at Israeli non-involved, but using Palestinian non-involved as, literally, cannon fodder, and yet you say:
it is Hamas that faces the existential threat. And while that shouldn't justify their reprehensible actions, it should at least put them in context.
Except Hamas core charter is reprehensible. From your claim to another poster that Hamas is against Israel, and not against Jews, I deduct you have not read it [yale.edu]. Statements specifically againt Israel are, in fact, quite scarce there. Statements against Jews, not so much. Choice quote for emphasis (but it is far from being the only example):
Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people. "May the cowards never sleep."
I did not concede that "Hamas is ... deliberately firing at Israeli non-involved" in the statement quoted here. I conceded that (in your own words) "Hamas has two main goals that it is trying to gain with firing at Israel. The first has to do with internal politics. It is firing, because the Palestinian society, for reasons that have a lot to do with Hamas, sees not firing as surrendering to Israel. The second reason Hamas opens fire is in order to trigger Israel's response, thus causing civilian Palestinian casualties." This statement was about Hamas' goals, not their actions.
While I think I understand your desire to increase the scope of this discussion to Hamas' charter (which I have indeed read and commented about extensively on slashdot), I'm not sure how that's relevant in this context. Whether or not Hamas faces an existential threat is only tangentially related to its charter. Its charter is not the proximate cause for its existence being threatened, the IDF is. Whether or not Hamas' charter is in turn responsible for Israel's threats is immaterial to this point. I'm open to having a separate conversation about their charter, but I don't think it's relevant to the double-standard point I've been trying to make.
So a racist fanatical organization with a reprehensible charter is doing reprehensible things. You claim it is because Israel has the means to destroy it. Sadly, I think you are wrong. Either way, I think your "context" is a little narrow.
That's not accurate. I claim that Hamas (a racist fanatical organization with a reprehensible charter) is doing reprehensible things for the two reasons you stated earlier (among others): maintaining a public image of resistance (for domestic consumption) and also as PR events to garner sympathy (for international consumption). I claim that Hamas faces an existential threat because Israel has the means (and has expressed a desire) to destroy it. These are two separate issues which you seem to be conflating here.
Third, I'd like to address two related points you made, but in a much abbreviated form as compared against my previous word salad that slashdot ate:
Israel's actions are no more reprehensible than one can possibly expect under the objective circumstances demand
So, if you want to substantiate your claim, what I'd like to hear from you is how you think Israel should have handled things. What would a non-morally bankrupt version of Israel do in its place?
I'll just say that I agree with the first of these statements, and that I think Israel should have handled things as they have, for the most part. Perhaps in the wake of Rabin's death they could've really stayed committed to the two state thing, done a bit more to combat settlers in the West Bank.
Would the names Notre Dame, Alabama or Oregon State carry any cachet outside local areas if it weren't for their football teams?
I don't follow amateur sports at all, but I know Oregon State for their Open Source Labs which host the Apache Software Foundation, the Linux Foundation, etc.
Also, it's sad that a low six-digit UID on slashdot only knows OSU for their handegg team.
"What's the square root of this apartment?" - Dave Chappelle
First, I'll admit that there was too much hyperbole in my last post. "Morally bankrupt" was a bad choice of words.
Second, I'll concede that I agree with your characterization of Hamas' goals.
Third, I'd like to address two related points you made, but in a much abbreviated form as compared against my previous word salad that slashdot ate:
Israel's actions are no more reprehensible than one can possibly expect under the objective circumstances demand
So, if you want to substantiate your claim, what I'd like to hear from you is how you think Israel should have handled things. What would a non-morally bankrupt version of Israel do in its place?
So, remember that I just wrote this up, all nice and well-phrased. I'm not doing that again, and for that I apologize in advance.
I'll just say that I agree with the first of these statements, and that I think Israel should have handled things as they have, for the most part. Perhaps in the wake of Rabin's death they could've really stayed committed to the two state thing, done a bit more to combat settlers in the West Bank. The few failures that they did see seem unavoidable to me, and not systemic either way. The human shields thing, you're always going to have a few assholes in any military. It's not like it was a policy advocated for by the top brass. But either way, these are small potatoes.
The important part of your first point here, though, is the "can possibly expect under the objective circumstances" bit. Without that, one might say that Israel's actions could be less reprehensible if they went the 100% non-violent route, and refused to retaliate in any capacity. However, that wouldn't be reasonable, and that's not expected of even the most selfless societies. By general international standards, retaliatory violence seems to be sanctioned, and whether or not it is reprehensible at this point seems to be a matter of debate. It's generally agreed upon that any response ought to be proportionate, so consequently in the case of an existential threat, pretty much anything goes. This is why Israel was able to allay concerns over its nuclear weapons program by offering a credible promise to not be the first to use them. But today, with Israel openly calling for its destruction (and having the means to bring it about), it is Hamas that faces the existential threat. And while that shouldn't justify their reprehensible actions, it should at least put them in context.
I would just like people to consider for a moment that, had earlier military conflicts turned out differently, the people that today offer an uneasy defense of (or are at least unwilling to demonize) Hamas' indiscriminate rocket fire and suicide bombings might instead be defending Israel's use of nuclear weapons in their own existential fight. Because it very much is a matter of context and circumstances.
On the one hand, I'll semi-agree with you that the article is totally vapid (without having even read it!), but on the other hand, that doesn't mean the discussion won't be valuable regardless. After all, articles on slashdot are really more useful to guide conversation to a particular topic than as actual content to be read. Here we are, talking about Trump's participation in the GOP's primary, all in good cheer. We don't need to talk about his tweets, we can talk about anything!
I'll chip in my contribution: Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, has written extensively about Trump's candidacy. As a student of persuasion science (hypnotism, etc.), Adams looks at Trump through a unique lens, and I've found his writings truly insightful.
The U3 rate only looks at employed individuals and those currently looking for work. The U6 rate includes those who are unemployed and willing to work but not looking for work and have looked for work in the past twelve months as well as those who are currently employed part-time due to part-time employment not always being able to provide enough income to support the household adequately.
U3 does not include individuals that have been unemployed for over 2 years but are still currently looking for work.
It seems that the government believes that it it is literally not possible to look for work for two years and still not find it. Basically, they've defined "looking for work" as "able to find work within two years", and I disagree with this stance.
While we're out here promoting our opinions on the subject of slashdot's Politics section, I'd like to throw my dissenting opinion into the ring.
... but seriously :P)
While you're certainly right that many stories under the Politics section indeed have little to nothing to do with news for nerds, oftentimes they still focus on stuff that matters. Many slashdotters come here not for the tech-focused stories [see also: rtfa], but to enjoy reasoned discussion with their nerdy brethren. See, for example, I cite a post I made the other day, about an admittedly controversial subject: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That subject is no better of a fit for the themes slashdot tends to focus on than is this Trump story, but check it out. That discussion went on for days while staying shockingly civil, levelheaded, objective (particularly the thread with Sun, for which I'm still working on a conciliatory reply). I don't know of many other forums for online discussion where this is even plausible, and that is the reason I encourage the new ownership to not abandon one of the few remaining outlets for such dialog.
tl;dr: Politics on slashdot is awesome because it's still possible to have discussions rooted in reason. At least until the libertarians come out. (I kid, I kid...
that qualification is why i corrected you.
What qualification? I don't see anything being corrected, I see you repeating what I had said myself. Either way, you haven't clarified what this even has to do with the subject being discussed.
yes, now, gaza is not the same thing as hamas. if you were to say, hamas called for the destruction of the conservative movement. or called for a coup d'etat in israel by the arabic minority. you'd have something. If hamas weren't a thing, israel would keep chugging along, if israel didn't exist neither would hamas.
I see a collection of words, but I'm not sure that they're strung together in any meaningful sense. No, Gaza is not the same thing as Hamas. One is a geographical area, and the other is a political state. Hamas is calling for an end to Israel (the political state), not Israel (the geographical area). This should be obvious to anyone that understands that it is not feasible to end the existence of a geographical area. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the latter part of your statement. If Hamas didn't exist, Israel would continue to exist, and if Israel didn't exist, neither would Hamas? Aside from this statement being vague to the point of meaninglessness, it's not even clear what basis you have for making it.
no, since they're only accused of committing war crimes relatively infrequently, it can't be their intent. unless they're incompetent at killing civilians.
While you're certainly entitled to your opinion, I don't understand why you're presenting it here as fact. It's certainly not impossible for a state to intentionally commit war crimes relatively infrequently while simultaneously being competent (whatever that means in this context) at killing civilians. I cite the United States as a counterexample to your claim.
for that particular accusation yes.
This too is not based on a rational argument, and as such, is yet another opinion.
i'm almost done because this seems pointless.
Indeed, sharing one's opinions often is.
regardless, if you're going to compare the two, actually compare the two. war-crimes are a legal definition that the international community has agreed to, with the actual realities of war at the back of their minds. They also reflect the moral stance that the global community takes on the ubiquity of collateral damage in a war.
Are you saying that by comparing the two, I'm not actually comparing the two? I'm not sure what that even means. Furthermore, I'd like to correct you and say that war crimes are not "a legal definition", they're actions carried out during the conduct of a war that violate accepted international rules of war. I'm not sure what the rest of the rhetoric was intended to convey. Something about war crimes being bad?
I'm not sure how any of your latest response has been related to the discussion I was hoping to have about a double standard being applied to the actions of Israel and Hamas, but I commend you for your interest in the subject nonetheless.
summary execution of dissidents and accused peoples without trial is also indicative that it's no longer really holds to "democratically elected" any more. that term falls away i believe once expected elections are not being held.
Come on, seriously? I myself pointed out the questionable current standing of the current Hamas administration. No need to "correct" me.
yeah, if by that you mean that they unilaterally withdrew all physical presence from gaza. at most israel is calling for establishing a puppet state. more realistically, just a government that can treat its own population however it wants, and isn't actively trying to kill israeli civilians. i don't think they conquered jordan or egypt and they're pretty happy with those neighbors.
Israel is calling for the end of Hamas, Hamas is calling for the end of Israel. There are those who falsely paint Hamas' stance as a call for death to all Jews, much like there are those who falsely paint Israel's stance as a desire to kill all Palestinians. If you can say with a straight face that Israel is "at most" calling for "establishing a puppet state", then I can say the same about Hamas. To disagree that both sides are being disingenuous is to support the double standard which I complain about. Comparing Israel's relationship with Jordan and Egypt to their relationship with the Palestinians is also absurd - there is a sovereign Egyptian state, there is a sovereign Jordanian state, and there is no sovereign Palestinian state.
sometimes appealing to the authority of others is all we can do, i'm nowhere near able to collect my own information after all. i'm appealing to the fact that the worst the UN has to complain about, not vote on so the security council doesn't really come into play, is a handful of instances. unrwa is unique, the UN bitches non-stop about israel, and the UN human rights council is stocked with countries that delight at pointing at israel to distract from their own human rights violations.
You alleged that for the most part, the bombs dropped by Israel have stood to legitimate international scrutiny. I pointed out how they have been denounced for their military campaigns by international organizations. The conversation has devolved to "organization X says they're okay", "but organization Y says they're horrible". Since your original statement was rather vague ("for the most part", lack of quantifiers, etc.), there's no sense in debating this point further.
and we're still talking only a handful of "maybes" out of thousands of bombs dropped. or do you think UNRWA and the UN human rights council are covering for israel too?
It's this willingness to overlook Israel's transgressions that encourages accusations of bias. So, since they only commit war crimes occasionally, they're beyond criticizing?
white phosphorous is legal under international law in many situations. just never against civilian targets, or from the air onto military targets in civilian zones apparently. and the IDF decided the ass-ache wasn't worth it so forewent using it this time round.
So, they took a break from committing this particular war crime, and now they're beyond reproach?
by your stance, there's very little difference between the stances of north korea and south. just two sides with a disagreement.
As far as I know, indeed, there's very little difference. They both threaten each other with mass violence in retaliation for perceived aggressions. The only reason this might seem like an absurd proposition to you is that, based on your worldview, you don't think it is possible for DPRK to reasonably perceive RK as aggressive. You see DPRK as aggressive, and RK as merely arming itself to defend against DPRK threats. However, from the other side, it's just the opposite. DPRK is arming itself to defend against RK threats. This inability to acknowledge that different sides are likely to perceive the situation through their own lens of bias, rightly or wrongly, isn't likely to lead you to particularly insightful observations.
First the easy part of the answer. Qasam 3 has a range of 16 kilometers. According to this article (enhanced map) the missiles beyond that range are not Qassam (in particular, the M75 you mention is also called Fajr-5, and is produced in Iran).
Today I learned. Although, The commander of the Iranian Guard said that Iran did not supply Gaza with a Fajr-5 missile but transferred the technology to manufacture it to the Palestinians. Not that this materially affects your point - just adding it in as an aside.
As for everything else: While I participated in enough discussions here to be appreciative of the fact that this discussion has not deteriorated to name calling and ad hominem attacks, and for that I really do feel I should commend you, I still feel we are failing to communicate on some really fundamental level. It feels to me like you are set in your opinion that the sides are morally equivalent, and are searching everything I say for evidence to support that conclusion, rather than examine the evidence set in order to reach the most likely conclusion. In particular, I am failing to impress the concept that choosing to target civilians is different than having to target civilians due to them being in the way to military objective.
Several points, here. First, I don't intend to portray both sides as morally equivalent - I seek to portray both sides as not being held to the same standard. Both sides don't need to be morally equivalent to be morally reprehensible. There is this sense that any criticism of Israel is intended to say they're "worse than" Hamas or something along those lines. I disagree with that wholeheartedly. Israel being terrible and Hamas being terrible are two distinct issues and should be treated as such. Second, you speak of examining the evidence set in order to reach the most likely conclusion. That's at odds with my usual approach - limiting discussion to facts and their necessary (not likely, but necessary) implications. Once we reduce conversation to likelihoods and opinions, particularly regarding a subject as thorny as this, we're not likely to reach any sort of agreement. Third, while you highlight my unwillingness to accept the difference between choosing to target civilian and having to target civilians due to them being in the way to military objective, you're really missing my point. Aside from really twisting the word 'target' to fit this context (by your definition, was the Semperoper "targeted" during the bombing of Dresden?), you're effectively looking at two reprehensible things and suggesting that the less reprehensible one is totally okay since they're not as bad as the other. I believe that's not justified by reason.
I can only shake my head in disbelief. I feel like nothing I have tried to say made any impact. That thing you say I was not trying to say is precisely what I actually was trying to say. Hamas fires whether there is a military target in range or not. As such, claiming that when there happens to be a military target somewhere in range, then it was targeting that, is simply apologetic. The very fact that they will fire whether there is a military target in range or not is proof positive that targeting military isn't what they're after.
I did re-read what you wrote, and while this may be what you were trying to say (indeed, I said as much myself), it's not what you were actually saying. That's why I brought it up myself, in an effort to infer what you might have been trying to say. I understand that this can seem somewhat pedantic, so I'll take this opportunity to apologize for splitting hairs - it's a prominent part of my personality that many find annoying. In my defense, I see it as insisting on precision in language and my intent isn't merely to frustrate. Either way, regarding the actual issue of Hamas firing on civilians in the absence of valid military targets, I don't understand how you can mistake my words for support or apologism. I
1. hrm, wasn't sure of the particulars, but I'm going to make a judgement call. I would say the destruction of a marginally democratic state is less preferable than the destruction of a largely tyrannical one.
The discussion I was trying to have was more of a close look at facts than an exchange of subjective opinions. What you (or I) find preferable isn't really relevant in that context.
the last election in gaza was the one that put hamas into power after all.
Yes, Hamas was the democratically elected government of Gaza, in an election that international observers generally agree was free and fair. Of course, since then, Hamas has basically suspended any meaningful sense of democracy, so their current reign may or may not have any sort of mandate from the population at large, but again, we seem to be drifting quite far from the original topic of the double standard as it relates to hostilities between Hamas and Israel.
also, i would say that the hamas charter is slightly more ambitious, it also calls for setting up an explicitly islamic state after the destruction of israel. i think that's called conquering.
Indeed. Of course, Israel also openly calls for the destruction of Hamas and openly supports the installation of a regime friendly to Western interests. Isn't that also called conquering? Or, is this yet another example of the double standard at work?
2. yes, because for the large part the bombs dropped by israel have stood to international scrutiny. Like legitimate international scrutiny. The civilian to militant casualty ratios are in keeping with or better than any other urban conflict.
By legitimate international scrutiny, you mean global outrage (legitimate or not) that is only blunted by the US's vetoes on the UN's Security Council? But, appeals to authority really aren't relevant in a discussion that's intended to stay rational. There's really no way to argue that use of white phosphorous stands up to legitimate international scrutiny any more than Hamas' rockets do.
Literally nobody is saying the hamas rockets aren't war crimes, every single one of them is; recognized by the UN when they deem to mention them at all. People debate whether a dozen out of a thousand bombs dropped by israel are beyond the pale, and when they do they are not asking whether they targetted the civilian population rather than a military one for the most part, they are asking whether or not the military target warranted the number of civilian casualties.
If by literally you mean figuratively, then sure. It's quite likely that Hamas themselves are saying that their own rockets aren't war crimes, regardless of whether they say this earnestly or not. Either way, again, nobody is denying that what Hamas is doing is wrong. The issue that I'm talking about assumes this as an axiom, even. My point is that there is a double standard that is applied when comparing Hamas' actions against Israel's, and your own statements demonstrate that better than I could myself.
More information needed. The three rockets fired from Gaza in July 2014 that struck around Ben Gurion International Airport near Tel Aviv were Qassam M75 rockets. It's not clear why you think Tel Aviv is out of Qassam's range.
Maybe not for their missiles, but definitely for their mortars. Please re-read what I said. They are perfectly capable of aiming mortars, and they do so at civilian areas. I am extrapolating to say if they target civilians with their aimable weapons, there is no reason to assume they are not doing so with their non-aimable weapons. All of this is, of course, assuming that we ignore (which you seem to be doing, for some reason) their intent as clearly stated by Hamas leaders in every opportunity.
I see no evidence that, given the choice between aiming mortars at military targets or civilian targets, they choose civilian targets. There is evidence that, in the absence of military targets, they aim mortars at civilian targets, but that's not the claim you appear to be making here. If you indeed did mean to accuse Hamas of attacking civilian targets when there are no military targets available, I can't argue against this accusation, as it is accurate to the best of my knowledge. That being said, this is not the same as choosing civilian targets over military ones. Regarding public statements made by Hamas leadership, I see no reason to assume that these are factual statements about intent or necessarily indicative TTPs, as their primary role is one of propaganda.
What I am saying is that there is a high correlation between periods in which you see reports claiming that Hamas is not interested in escalation right now with rockets falling in open fields. I am not using the mere fact of open fields falls as proof. I am claiming that the correlation suggest intent. It also suggests intent to the contrary.
I'm unaware of such correlation. I'm well aware that Hamas' rocket fire from Gaza sometimes dwindles dramatically, and sometimes escalates dramatically, in line with the political situation there. I'm aware that rocket fire in general decreases when Hamas is not interested in escalation, but I've seen no evidence of rocket "misses" increasing during these times as well. I'd be very much interested in seeing any sort of study of this alleged phenomenon.
Suppose Hamas stops shooting at Israel. What would happen? I claim that would would happen is that Israel would not be shooting at Gaza, and if the quiet continued for longer periods, the siege on Gaza would gradually lift.
This is an entirely baseless assumption. Let us use the West Bank as a case study for what happens when Palestinians abandon violent resistance and instead acquiesce to the demands of the occupying powers. Instead of leaving them alone or allowing them to form a sovereign state, Israel continues supporting policies of oppression and slow annexation. Currently, 18% of the West Bank (by land area) enjoys some limited amount of autonomy (Area A), while the rest (Areas B and C) are policed by Israel. Even Area A is still subject to IDF raids, implying that the entirety of the West Bank is still under the full military authority of Israel. Suppose Hamas does stop shooting at Israel. Why do you expect Palestinians there would fare any better than those in the West Bank?
So, no, Israel does not have the option to simply not fire. Israel's commitment to its own residents safety is higher than its commitment not to harm civilians in Gaza. Hamas can provide no such justification, as Hamas choosing not to fire will decrease, not increase, the risk to Gaza's residents.
And similarly, does Hamas not have an obligation to combat the occupying forces, even at great cost of human life? If Israel is justified in accepting civilian casualties in order to protect the Israeli state, is Hamas not justified in accepting civilian casualties in order to protect the nascent Palestinian state? Why is it assumed that it's entirely reasonable to expect Hamas to simply give up the fight against Israel in the name of saving civilian lives, but so unreasonable to expect the same of Israel?
Not even close.
Strong argument.
The actual warning does not make the punching okay. If, however, the punching is already okay, then the warning makes the difference between intent to cause harm and incidental harm. As I told you elsewhere, intent is everything in those matters.
So, justified retaliatory strikes are okay? Like, when Hamas launches rockets into Israel, it's okay for Israel to retaliate with force. And when Israel imposes a blockade on Gaza, it's okay for Hamas to retaliate with force. Or, is there more of a, shall we say, double standard?
Israel, for the most part, is hitting civilian targets only when there is a valid military reason to do so (there are some cases that seem genuinely at odds with that statement, but they are the exceptions, not the rule). As far as both international law and the standard that just about any other army in the world employs, that is the end of the story. Israel takes the extra step of warning the civilians at that location to clear out, so that they do not get hurt.
As I said before, these same things can be said of Hamas. Also, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that you're suggesting that there can be a valid military reason for hitting civilian targets. However, it appears that you only believe this is the case when Israeal is attacking Gaza, and not the other way around. This makes it seem like you have one standard for the IDF, and another for Hamas.
The advance warning is not what makes striking someone's home legitimate. The fact that Hamas was storing missiles in that home is what made striking it legitimate. The warning is what makes complaints against Israel about killing civilians absurd at best and malicious propaganda at worst. Just about any other army in the world would classify that home as a legitimate military target and bomb it. In any other army but the IDF, it is considered bad tactical policy to let a target know in advance that it is about to be hit.
Ah, the "it's retaliatory" argument! If you read my original post in this thread, you'll find that I already addressed how both sides can (and do) claim their actions are retaliatory and provoked by instigation from the other side. Also, on the subject of the "absurdity" of Israel's killing of civilians, you might want to read all of the accounts written by IDF soldiers, which you dismiss as propaganda, about the systemic use of Palestinian civilians human shields in the IDF. It's the unwillingness by people to take a critical look at both sides which only further escalates this issue.
I hope it is clear to you why I find this sentence completely and utterly incorrect.
It's not. Can you please elaborate?