Is the situation in Gaza an example of repetition compulsion?

[Elok]

Well, I could wrangle over the meaning of "proportionate" in this context, argue over whether an exactly equal response to a terrorist attack--ie, murdering precisely the same number of innocent civilians on the other side--is actually desirable or sound policy, or ask you how one is supposed to justly and practically prosecute war against a government that uses guerilla tactics and human shields. Or I could tell you you're mischaracterizing impotence as virtue; Hamas has always explicitly pursued the destruction of Israel as a goal, and having no means to practically achieve that goal has been reduced to making a pitiful, but painful, nuisance of itself. Or I could ... oh, whatever. Is there any point to this argument? I don't think Israel are angelic by any means, but everyone but Hamas has accepted that absolutely nothing is going to make them emigrate their entire population, which is why every government in the region other than Iran has reduced their support for Hamas to lip service.

[Dauphin]

Well, I could wrangle over the meaning of "proportionate" in this context, argue over whether an exactly equal response to a terrorist attack--ie, murdering precisely the same number of innocent civilians on the other side--is actually desirable or sound policy, or ask you how one is supposed to justly and practically prosecute war against a government that uses guerilla tactics and human shields.

You made the statement that Israel are being proportionate. If you want to define it or redefine it, do so. But don't imply I claimed it was sound policy or not, or that I was not a feasible way to achieve Israel's aims. To do so is what one may call 'shifting the goal posts'.

Also talking about equal innocent lives lost kind of misses the point, no? Hamas not caring how many innocents die doesn't mean Israel shouldn't care.

[quote]Or I could tell you you're mischaracterizing impotence as virtue; Hamas has always explicitly pursued the destruction of Israel as a goal, and having no means to practically achieve that goal has been reduced to making a pitiful, but painful, nuisance of itself.[/q]

Yes, they are impotent. It's not a virtue, just a reality. Why does it take the killing of tens of thousands innocent people trying to root out Hamas if they have next to no ability to act on their goals?

Or I could ... oh, whatever. Is there any point to this argument? I don't think Israel are angelic by any means, but everyone but Hamas has accepted that absolutely nothing is going to make them emigrate their entire population, which is why every government in the region other than Iran has reduced their support for Hamas to lip service.

If I being honest, I don't really care what happens in Israel of Gaza. It's far away, I don't know anyone there, and as far as I can tell doesn't impact me any more than the countless mass deaths happening around the world. I'm not arguing for or against Israel, but I can recognise their behaviour is anything but 'proportionate' in terms of destruction and body counts..

[The Mad Monk]

Proportional.

[N35t0r]

... there were people who said "from the river to the sea" in a more moderate way?

You're saying we should just outright bomb Jerusalem?

[N35t0r]

Well, I could wrangle over the meaning of "proportionate" in this context, argue over whether an exactly equal response to a terrorist attack--ie, murdering precisely the same number of innocent civilians on the other side--is actually desirable or sound policy, or ask you how one is supposed to justly and practically prosecute war against a government that uses guerilla tactics and human shields. Or I could tell you you're mischaracterizing impotence as virtue; Hamas has always explicitly pursued the destruction of Israel as a goal, and having no means to practically achieve that goal has been reduced to making a pitiful, but painful, nuisance of itself. Or I could ... oh, whatever. Is there any point to this argument? I don't think Israel are angelic by any means, but everyone but Hamas has accepted that absolutely nothing is going to make them emigrate their entire population, which is why every government in the region other than Iran has reduced their support for Hamas to lip service.

Hamas is not all Palestinians though.

In particular, Hamas isn't even the nominal government of the West Bank, who still get illegal settlers and IDF violence against civilians (pre-october 7th, to an even greater extent than Gaza!). If the idea was to 'practically prosecute war against a government that uses guerilla tactics and human shields', then surely helping them gain power would not be the more prolific course of action?

If Israel had really been interested in peace, they'd have made efforts to reward the more moderate PA and not Hamas, rather than withdrawing from Gaza completely yet continuing to support illegal land seizures and murder of Palestinians by Israeli settlers in the West Bank.

[N35t0r]

I don't think Israel are angelic by any means, but everyone but Hamas has accepted that absolutely nothing is going to make them emigrate their entire population, which is why every government in the region other than Iran has reduced their support for Hamas to lip service.

And yet, when it's the Israeli government that decides that all Palestinians should just emigrate (with a very explosive "or else" going on), then the correct answer is to just shrug and say "IDK what they should do, they tried proportionally killing orders of magnitude more civilians and keep stealing land and it doesn't work, so peace must be impossible".

[Heresson]

Israel is surrounded by people that want to kill them. If one wants to assign some term to defending themselves, have at it.

1. First of all it is not true. Dozens of countries around Israel - even Iran! - declared, years ago already (2016) that they will accept Israel in exchange for ending the occupation of Palestine (Gaza and West Bank) and solving the refugee issue. Later on they agreed to land swaps concerning 1967 borders. It was Israel that was not interested, and Netanyahu did not even wish to discuss it.
2. Secondly, Israel is occupying West Bank (and Gaza) for 58 years now. Colonising West Bank. Making life for Palestinians more and more untolerable. Not to mention ethnically cleansing over 80% of Arabs from Israel during the first Arab-Israeli war. Israel is hardly an innocent lamb. Moreover, most Arab-Israeli wars (1956, 1967, 1978, 1982...) were started by Israel.
3. The current conflict - albeit a continuation of earlier ones - was started by a massacre by Hamas. But even if you ignore all the history before, there are limits to self-defence. Every country would reply. But very few countries would reply like that. President saying there are no innocent civilians in Gaza. Prime minister and ministers calling Gazans human-animals that should be treated accordingly. Prime minister saying Gaza will be wiped out, and (Palestinians) will not remain there. Prime minister and ministers openly speaking of ethnic cleansing and settling the area with Jews (btw, 3/4 or 4/5 of Gazans are people Israel has already ethnically cleansed once, in 1947-9). 82% of Israeli Jews supporting, according to polls, ethnic cleansing, and 47% outright slaughter, of Gazans. Israel closing all humanitarian aid and actually some ministers admitting it is deliberatory way of "exerting pressure", than coming up with 4 aid points instead of 400, hiring far-right anti-Muslim men from USA to act as security, and simply shoot people there, already over 1000 people died at the distribution sites. Etc.
Here, look how it looks from a perspective of an Israeli soldier caught on hidden camera.
youtube.com/watch?v=L8hYKszuWhs&fbclid=IwY2xjawM5wf5leHRuA2Flb QIxMQABHgpn0bIfisQBJG1yfYzc7qCagJPIqSoXnP_u1i9LrIW Ftr-bQJYn-M6TWOoB_aem_sNbCNfO0pA_yAbJz_mS5iA

[Heresson]

Ah, Dauphin is from Toronto. I am in Quebec now (will meet CrONoS tomorrow), and I will return to Montreal soon. I considered going to Toronto, but things did not work out .