Was: Israel is at War; Now: Scoopers diagnose your anti-Semitism

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

How considerate of Yale to censor a pro Israel editorial in their student newspaper.

Yale didn't do anything. A student editor for one of the Yale newspapers removed one line from the article on the basis that the line made unsubstantiated claims. Whether those claims are actually unsubstantiated, I don't know.

The article also wasn't pro-Israel, it was criticizing a pro-Palestine student group.

[jesmu84]

While I think there is a faction of the far right in Israel that would like to completely push the Palestinians out of Gaza/West Bank, I don't think that is actually the intent of this counterattack nor the aim of the IDF in this current campaign.  I don't think a military bombing campaign on a variety of targets is genocidal.  Its not as if the IDF ground campaign is making its way through Gazan cities and towns strafing hundreds of civilians at every stop.

I think its been such a long time since there was a major war that got full scale international coverage, especially in the social media age, that people have this misguided thought of what war is or entails.  If the IDF was truly genocidal in its goals and intents, the civilian death count would be massively higher already.

Same with people calling it "ethnic cleansing" ignoring the racial and ethnic diversity of Israel.

Ukraine?

[The Sultan]

While I think there is a faction of the far right in Israel that would like to completely push the Palestinians out of Gaza/West Bank, I don't think that is actually the intent of this counterattack nor the aim of the IDF in this current campaign.  I don't think a military bombing campaign on a variety of targets is genocidal.  Its not as if the IDF ground campaign is making its way through Gazan cities and towns strafing hundreds of civilians at every stop.

I think its been such a long time since there was a major war that got full scale international coverage, especially in the social media age, that people have this misguided thought of what war is or entails.  If the IDF was truly genocidal in its goals and intents, the civilian death count would be massively higher already.

Same with people calling it "ethnic cleansing" ignoring the racial and ethnic diversity of Israel.

Isn't Russia's invasion of Ukraine a "major war?"

Regardless you are 100% correct that the extreme language that people are using isn't helping. It's turning something with lots of shades of gray into something black and white. And it's just not that black and white.

[The Sultan]

A viral video by an Israeli citizen explains their point of view.

Done two weeks ago, this unknown YouTuber's video now has over 4.1 million views.

It is a good place to start if you want to get the Israeli perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNf40sBcvKk

Note, when he starts talking about "religion" and "values" at the end, he is 100% correct that this makes secular progressive Westerns very uncomfortable. And it is precisely that these subjects are so taboo to Western progressives that we get the tortured logic and the conceit that the secular Western progressive worldview is the only correct one, as seen in many of the posts immediately above this one.

Why are you so intent on using this issue to fight your culture war?  It's pretty demented actually.

[Skatastrophy]

Why are you so intent on using this issue to fight your culture war?  It's pretty demented actually.

He's got hate in his heart. Every generation so many old people hate the young people, and I don't understand why. Maybe it's regret and sadness that the olds are fading away. A feeling of impotence as the fresh ideals of the young overwhelm the the collective consciousness as your generation slowly turns to dust.

I'll get to experience it in real time in the coming decades. I'll keep Scoop updated when I start feeling like the idealists are actively trying to ruin the world. I'm looking at you, Zoomers, with your skibidi toilet memes. Not a great start imo

[tower912]

Yeah, go back to mom jokes.

[Boozemon Barro]

We agree. And I think others including JWags (sorry if I'm wrong, but I think you posted things along these lines) are very critical of the far-right Israeli politicians.

Extremists and Nationalists making decisions is never a good thing. And for a long time, extremists on both sides have been calling the shots.

Would you consider Hamas far-left?

[forgetful]

Would you consider Hamas far-left?

I have no idea. I'm not an expert on Palestinian political parties. A quick google search says they are syncretic, meaning they combine ideas from all ends of the political spectrum.

[MUBurrow]

While I think there is a faction of the far right in Israel that would like to completely push the Palestinians out of Gaza/West Bank, I don't think that is actually the intent of this counterattack nor the aim of the IDF in this current campaign.

What is the end game here, do you think? Turn north Gaza into something like an Area B/Area C in the West Bank?  Create something of a buffer between south Gaza and Israel that is controlled and/or militarily occupied by Israeli forces?

[The Sultan]

What is the end game here, do you think? Turn north Gaza into something like an Area B/Area C in the West Bank?  Create something of a buffer between south Gaza and Israel that is controlled and/or militarily occupied by Israeli forces?

Probably. But I think this is one of the larger concerns. What is the end game both short-term and long-term?

[Skatastrophy]

Yeah, go back to mom jokes.

Your momma's so fat because she eats to try to shake the disappointment she feels about you.

[tower912]

Glorious

[lawdog77]

Your momma's so fat because she eats to try to shake the disappointment she feels about you.

Your mother's an astronaut

[forgetful]

I think the big difference between the different groups of posters here is that one group looks at this situation as a one side has to win, and whatever they have to do to achieve their goals, no matter how many civilians (and children) need to die it is justified for that side to win, in the view that one side has to win and the other to be removed.

The other group of posters views this as the fact that there are historically bad actions on both sides that have contributed to a culture of violence, and that more violence will never solve the issue. That both sides should have the right to independent sovereign states (two state solution). This side views all civilians lives as valuable, and that actions that disproportionately target civilians are wrong, period, and that they should not be just accepted.

[forgetful]

Also a general questions.

Everyone agrees that the horrific terrorist attack against Israel was a crime against humanity, and should be denounced repeatedly. In those horrific attacks 1400 people died (~1100 civilians: 300 soldiers) and 220+ were taken hostage.

In the Israeli attacks on Gaza right now, ~9000 have died, including over 4000 children. Almost all were civilians. We know for at least 1 strike, at least 50 civilians were killed to target a single Hamas Commander.

As I posted a link to earlier, BBC has confirmed that Israel on multiple occasions have directed people to go to a specific area for safety, and then bombed the exact site they told civilians to go to. That is directly and intentionally targeting civilian populations.

In relation to the previous post. Many of the posters here say both are unjust, and are not acceptable. These views align with international law.

For those that think the latter is justified and acceptable, Why?

[dgies9156]

Brothers and Sisters:

Again, you have to stop thinking about the Middle East in terms of American social values. It's a complete waste of time.

The closest thing in our history is the Native Americans whose tribes were homesteading in North and South America when the Europeans arrives. Radio carbondating has now put human presence on the North American continent as 10,000 years ago or more. Heck, Vero (Beach) man is almost that old and he reportedly was seen two weeks ago at Holy Cross Catholic Church or at Cleveland Clinic Indian River Hospital.

Do we advocate for the Native Americans to become terrorists and drive caucasian man back to the sea? No, it would be foolhardy. Our culture calls for the Native American to be incorporated into our society -- and if they don't want to be, the Native American governs himself/herself on reservations. Our courts have generally been friendly to Native American reservation claims in recent years.

In the Middle East, some, including the Iranians, have called for driving the Jew back to the sea or shooting until every Jew is dead. That's Hamas' goal. The Israelis put the Palestinians -- including Hamas -- on a reservation and look where it got Israel. You cannot assume that when "tribal leaders" have a goal of  eradicating every Jew in the Middle East, you're going to be able to live in peace. Not going to happen.

[MuggsyB]

Also a general questions.

Everyone agrees that the horrific terrorist attack against Israel was a crime against humanity, and should be denounced repeatedly. In those horrific attacks 1400 people died (~1100 civilians: 300 soldiers) and 220+ were taken hostage.

In the Israeli attacks on Gaza right now, ~9000 have died, including over 4000 children. Almost all were civilians. We know for at least 1 strike, at least 50 civilians were killed to target a single Hamas Commander.

As I posted a link to earlier, BBC has confirmed that Israel on multiple occasions have directed people to go to a specific area for safety, and then bombed the exact site they told civilians to go to. That is directly and intentionally targeting civilian populations.

In relation to the previous post. Many of the posters here say both are unjust, and are not acceptable. These views align with international law.

For those that think the latter is justified and acceptable, Why?

During WW2 did the Allies change their goals to defeat the Nazis when there were German civilian deaths?  Not only is Israel at War, We, Meaning the United States and Western Civilization is essentially at War.  We are dealing with a potential Axis of Evil that can wreak insane suffering and death on the entire world.   In the short term we're obviously dealing with Islamic Extremists/Jihadists. 

Let me ask you a question:  If in the near term Islamic Fundamentalists attack our homeland, in comparable fashion to what happened in Israel on Oct 7, meaning 40K+ murdered barbarrically, what do you think we should do exactly?   Should we wait to be attacked or do everything in our power to eliminate the threat of Iran and its proxies.

[MUBurrow]

Let me ask you a question:  If in the near term Islamic Fundamentalists attack our homeland, in comparable fashion to what happened in Israel on Oct 7, meaning 40K+ murdered barbarrically, what do you think we should do exactly?

Still as gross as the last time you made this weird proportionality point. 

[MuggsyB]

Brothers and Sisters:

Again, you have to stop thinking about the Middle East in terms of American social values. It's a complete waste of time.

The closest thing in our history is the Native Americans whose tribes were homesteading in North and South America when the Europeans arrives. Radio carbondating has now put human presence on the North American continent as 10,000 years ago or more. Heck, Vero (Beach) man is almost that old and he reportedly was seen two weeks ago at Holy Cross Catholic Church or at Cleveland Clinic Indian River Hospital.

Do we advocate for the Native Americans to become terrorists and drive caucasian man back to the sea? No, it would be foolhardy. Our culture calls for the Native American to be incorporated into our society -- and if they don't want to be, the Native American governs himself/herself on reservations. Our courts have generally been friendly to Native American reservation claims in recent years.

In the Middle East, some, including the Iranians, have called for driving the Jew back to the sea or shooting until every Jew is dead. That's Hamas' goal. The Israelis put the Palestinians -- including Hamas -- on a reservation and look where it got Israel. You cannot assume that when "tribal leaders" have a goal of  eradicating every Jew in the Middle East, you're going to be able to live in peace. Not going to happen.

Brother dgies, "Death to America" is cheered as gleefully as "Death to Israel" there.  There was a Hamas fkbag, who after brutally murdering 10 innocent Israelis, called his mom.  She replied euphorically how proud she was of him when he told her "I killed 10 Jews today mom!"  This is what we're dealing with. 

[MuggsyB]

Still as gross as the last time you made this weird proportionality point.

It's a fact.

[Uncle Rico]

It's a fact.

We're not at war

[The Sultan]

It's a fact.

"Do you know that when the Pope dies in Vatican City, its the equivalent of the entire population of Omaha dying at once!"

That's a fact too.  But it's not really relevant to anything.

[Skatastrophy]

Good News - Egypt is letting in a few refugees

Israel, Egypt, Hamas, the United States and Qatar negotiated the deal. Well done it's a start.

NYT blurb

> Scores of people — some with dual nationalities and other seriously injured Palestinians — arrived in Egypt on Wednesday, a border official said, after the Gaza border was opened under an international agreement to allow a few categories of people to cross. They were the first such exits from Gaza since the start of the war between Hamas and Israel.

Ambulances shuttled 76 critically injured people and members of their families into Egypt from Gaza, said Wael Abu Mohsen, a spokesman for the Gaza side of the Rafah border crossing. Gravely wounded Palestinians were being taken to nearby hospitals in Egypt, Gazan health officials said

[JWags85]

Isn't Russia's invasion of Ukraine a "major war?"

Thats fair, I guess I view that as more of a one sided incursion, but you're not wrong.  I guess the media coverage feels a bit different than this.

What is the end game here, do you think? Turn north Gaza into something like an Area B/Area C in the West Bank?  Create something of a buffer between south Gaza and Israel that is controlled and/or militarily occupied by Israeli forces?

I don't have a firm answer for that.  But it feels, outside of the far right wishes, like "root out/eliminate Hamas" and then deal with the aftermath later.  I think a buffer is probably needed for a feeling of safety in the near term, but I'm not sure.  I think beyond the obvious fall out from the IDF's campaign into Gaza, so much of the near and mid term future is unknown cause it depends on the state of Hamas/PIJ and how that may play into Fatah's stature in the West Bank and futher and whatnot.

Also a general questions.

Everyone agrees that the horrific terrorist attack against Israel was a crime against humanity, and should be denounced repeatedly. In those horrific attacks 1400 people died (~1100 civilians: 300 soldiers) and 220+ were taken hostage.

In the Israeli attacks on Gaza right now, ~9000 have died, including over 4000 children. Almost all were civilians. We know for at least 1 strike, at least 50 civilians were killed to target a single Hamas Commander.

War is disgusting and horrible at all levels, but sometimes you have to think in strategic absolutes.  If a valuable Hamas commander being eliminated could fundamentally weaken Hamas' strategy, planning, forces, ability to bounce back from IDF attacks...then it may very well be worth eliminating at civilian cost.  If the US had known that the hijackers from 9/11 could have been taken out the first weekend of September but it would have meant killing 75 civilians in a building with them to do so, thats a obviously a difficult choice but not a "ITS NEVER WORTH KILLING CIVILIANS" black and white absolute.

I don't know the specifics of the Hamas leader who was targeted and eliminated, but simplifying it down to "1 person is never worth 50 civilians", like it was just some random Hamas soldier, isn't necessarily fair at broadest brush.

As I posted a link to earlier, BBC has confirmed that Israel on multiple occasions have directed people to go to a specific area for safety, and then bombed the exact site they told civilians to go to. That is directly and intentionally targeting civilian populations.

In relation to the previous post. Many of the posters here say both are unjust, and are not acceptable. These views align with international law.

For those that think the latter is justified and acceptable, Why?

So I read into that as well, and its again a little more shades of grey.  They didn't say "go to the Fiserv Forum for safety" and then bombed the Fiserv Forum.  It was more general areas of southern Gaza, but then the IDF has also said they would not be completely stopping attacks in southern Gaza, which leads to strikes in the vicinity of civilians that have moved.

I dont disagree its nasty business and that the IDF could afford to be more tactical and cautious in some of their attacks, but I do object to this idea that the IDF is directing civilians to hot spots to easily attack those hotspots like shooting fish in a barrel.  It does nothing to further their goals/mission and only further hurts their cause.  As I said before, if Israel truly wanted to be genocidal and engage in good old ethnic cleansing, they have had every opportunity and resources to do so without skirting around the edges, which is wholly ineffective if that was truly the goal.

[MUBurrow]

It's a fact.

Its a proportion.  And one that you are torturing to do work that it just can't do.  Would identical attacks that kill 5,000 people in China, the United States, and Israel warrant different responses because of the populations of those countries? That's a morally bankrupt way to view anything.