Israel, Palestine and Iran

[sne]

24 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Does anyone know the nationality of the UN staff members that were died in Gaza over the past couple of days?

 

Official site only mentions what they worked with

Quote

 

GAZA CITY

“I am very saddened to confirm that 11 UNRWA colleagues have been killed since 7 October in the Gaza Strip.

“They included five teachers at UNRWA schools, one gynecologist, one engineer, one psychological counselor and three support staff.

“Some were killed in their homes with their families.

“UNRWA mourns this loss and is grieving with our colleagues and the families.

“UN staff and civilians must be protected at all times during conflict.

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/eleven-unrwa-staff-and-personnel-killed-in-the-gaza/

[ender4]

Why have Egypt closed their border with the Gaza Strip as well? Is it purely to stop refugees crossing into Egypt? Why can’t they provide/sell food, medicine, fuel to Gaza residents now that Israel have stopped?

There is also a sea border. Can they not import from other countries?

[sne]

5 minutes ago, ender4 said:

Why have Egypt closed their border with the Gaza Strip as well? Is it purely to stop refugees crossing into Egypt? Why can’t they provide/sell food, medicine, fuel to Gaza residents now that Israel have stopped?

There is also a sea border. Can they not import from other countries?

Israel has a total blockade against Palestine from the sea. 

[Jareth]

I think the FA have played this one right - minutes silence for all victims of the conflict. 

[ender4]

17 minutes ago, sne said:

Israel has a total blockade against Palestine from the sea. 

Ohhhh!

[OutByEaster?]

25 minutes ago, ender4 said:

Why have Egypt closed their border with the Gaza Strip as well? Is it purely to stop refugees crossing into Egypt? Why can’t they provide/sell food, medicine, fuel to Gaza residents now that Israel have stopped?

There is also a sea border. Can they not import from other countries?

Egypt have opened the border and fast tracked it today - there's still a process which slows it up - and they've asked Israel if they'd mind not bombing it for a bit while they try to get some people out - Israel was bombing the area around the border crossing yesterday.

[OutByEaster?]

29 minutes ago, ender4 said:

There is also a sea border. Can they not import from other countries?

A human rights group from Turkey tried a symbolic breach of the sea blockade in 2010 with medicines and humanitarian aid - Israel landed commandos on the main ship and killed ten of them. They take it very seriously.

[Panto_Villan]

38 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

It's also pretty hollow coming from him given that I'm sure he's already done this same crime in retaliation but x10.

Nah, that’s not true. Intent and the level of cruelty matters when you’re talking about a killing, even if the ultimate outcome is the same for the dead person.

You can rightly point out that babies have almost certainly died in Israel’s retaliatory strikes but let’s face it - if the IDF rounded up a bunch of children and publicly beheaded them, people wouldn’t be saying “it’s just the same as them being killed in an airstrike.” It would be considered much worse.

[OutByEaster?]

12 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

You can rightly point out that babies have almost certainly died in Israel’s retaliatory strikes but let’s face it - if the IDF rounded up a bunch of children and publicly beheaded them, people wouldn’t be saying “it’s just the same as them being killed in an airstrike.” It would be considered much worse.

Indeed, but I wouldn't want a webcam on the incubators in Gaza's hospitals right now as the power goes out and they stop wriggling either.

It's two evil arseholes doing the same thing. Deliberately killing kids is wrong; wrong when Hammas do it, wrong when Israel do it.

[Keyblade]

14 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Nah, that’s not true. Intent and the level of cruelty matters when you’re talking about a killing, even if the ultimate outcome is the same for the dead person.

You can rightly point out that babies have almost certainly died in Israel’s retaliatory strikes but let’s face it - if the IDF rounded up a bunch of children and publicly beheaded them, people wouldn’t be saying “it’s just the same as them being killed in an airstrike.” It would be considered much worse.

There's still no evidence of this. The stomach-turning pictures posted look like the result of a bombing to be honest.

[a-k]

1 hour ago, Keyblade said:

It's also pretty hollow coming from him given that I'm sure he's already done this same crime in retaliation but x10.

Excuse me? Are you accusing, with no evidence, that Netanyahu has beheaded 400 babies?

[Keyblade]

33 minutes ago, a-k said:

Excuse me? Are you accusing, with no evidence, that Netanyahu has beheaded 400 babies?

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic here, but read the post I was replying to maybe for some context cues?

Whatever it is that happened in those pictures he posted (which do not look like beheadings), I'm fairly certain he's already eclipsed given the number of casualties so far.

[VILLAMARV]

1 hour ago, Panto_Villan said:

You can rightly point out that babies have almost certainly died in Israel’s retaliatory strikes but let’s face it - if the IDF rounded up a bunch of children and publicly beheaded them, people wouldn’t be saying “it’s just the same as them being killed in an airstrike.” It would be considered much worse.

Thing is, if we dont do the strawman thing, we'll only be left remembering the reality - that when the IDF intentionally shoot children, journalists and disabled people the world is mostly silent and the oppression continues unabated.

 

[chrisp65]

2 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

Thing is, if we dont do the strawman thing, we'll only be left remembering the reality - that when the IDF intentionally shoot children, journalists and disabled people the world is mostly silent and the oppression continues unabated.

 

Every journalist shot in the head by the Israeli army has been an accident, we’ve been over this.

[KentVillan]

What's clear is that virtually everybody has a side in this conflict that they sympathise more with, and every argument just turns into people sharing the worst or best examples from each side of the conflict, as fits their views.

There's really no objective position you can take on something like this. You can be relatively neutral, but even that is your subjective opinion.

Both sides lie, both sides use propaganda, both sides commit atrocities. Depending on how you zoom in or zoom out, you can find more fault with one side.

In terms of raw numbers, many more Palestinians have died or been forced to live lives of poverty and squalor. But the Israelis understandably fear the complete extermination of their people, which is indeed the stated objective of some of their opponents. A "hit first, hit hardest" mentality is the natural consequence of that. So you end up with "defence" that turns into extreme aggression that results in appalling war crimes. Not that different from the Allied fire bombing of Dresden, or the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I'm not defending Israel and especially not Netanyahu and the Israeli far right, but there are just so many people on both sides who don't want the only solution that could possibly work (a peace treaty and two-state solution), so naturally the hard liners have outsize influence on what happens.

It turned out in Northern Ireland that it wasn't really the peaceful voices in the centre who turned it around. It was the hardliners realising that their nihilism wasn't getting them anywhere. Until that shifts in this case, nothing will ever change IMO. I'm not sure America or "the west" or the Saudis or Iran or whoever have much influence over that. It will have to come from within eventually, but this seems much more deep rooted than most conflicts of this nature.

[VILLAMARV]

14 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

What's clear is that virtually everybody has a side in this conflict that they sympathise more with, and every argument just turns into people sharing the worst or best examples from each side of the conflict, as fits their views.

There's really no objective position you can take on something like this. You can be relatively neutral, but even that is your subjective opinion.

I don't share this opinion. I think using recorded factual accounts from a humanitarian POV retains some objectivity. I think most people are appalled at the death and violence. I don't think most people have picked a side at all. There are plenty of people that think Israeli death is equal in every way to Palestinian death and vice versa. It's death.

and to the 'argumments' bit - I think there's a massive difference in using that recorded information to justify acts of violence or to voice support for others doing acts of violence and using that information to challenge fallacies.

I appreciate you've avoided an absolutist statement, and I'm not picking an argument, but I disagree.

[delboy54]

One thing that has got me wondering is that as Gaza is surrounded by Israel, the sea and Egypt, and as there is apparently a blockade by Israel from the sea, how is Hamas getting all these missiles that they indiscriminately launch against Israel?

The only way they can get that amount of missiles, arms and ordnance in, is through Egypt, is that right?....

[KentVillan]

8 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

I don't share this opinion. I think using recorded factual accounts from a humanitarian POV retains some objectivity. I think most people are appalled at the death and violence. I don't think most people have picked a side at all. There are plenty of people that think Israeli death is equal in every way to Palestinian death and vice versa. It's death.

and to the 'argumments' bit - I think there's a massive difference in using that recorded information to justify acts of violence or to voice support for others doing acts of violence and using that information to challenge fallacies.

I appreciate you've avoided an absolutist statement, and I'm not picking an argument, but I disagree.

All good, I know you're not picking an argument.

Where I would disagree is you can't just look at it from a humanitarian scorecard perspective, because you also have to factor in the hypotheticals - what does each side fear might happen if they don't act aggressively.

And this is where it becomes incredibly complicated. Both sides fear the complete loss of their people and what they see as their land. When hardliners on both sides have entirely contradictory goals, you end up with a situation where atrocities are justified in their minds as the natural price to pay for their own safety.

That doesn't mean justifying the atrocities, it's just you can see the moral complexities that play out in even rational, empathetic people caught up in this, let alone bloodthirsty sociopathic people.

[Mic09]

2 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

 Both sides fear the complete loss of their people and what they see as their land. 

I think that for a long time now, only one side has a justifiable fear of their people being destroyed in this conflict.  

[KentVillan]

7 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

I think that for a long time now, only one side has a justifiable fear of their people being destroyed in this conflict.  

I disagree. One side has the upper hand, but they are surrounded by allies of the other side, and sceptical of how reliable their allies are.

Put it this way, forgetting the ethics and morals, would you want to be in the shoes of either party in this conflict? I think both sides are dealing with a level of fear and paranoia that we in the west can’t really relate to.