Biden says US to carry out airdrops of aid into Gaza in coming days

[Shusha]

... But this did not happen in a vacuum and people keep trying to treat it like it did on the Israeli side but not on the Palestinian side. This is the culmination of decades of an unresolved conflict ...

Gender-based sexual violence doesn't happen in a vacuum either. It occurs within the context of a complex stew of misogyny, historical expectations, religious beliefs, cultural norms, systemic oppression, and other societal ills.

Despite this stew, the only one responsible for committing rape is the rapist. The rapist is not inevitably compelled to perform acts of evil, as though he has no responsibility, no accountability, and no choice except to commit the evil. The victim of rape is never complicit in causing her own harm. And we don't (or we shouldn't) assign "points" as to who was most at fault for the "oops! accident" of rape. It doesn't matter if the rapist and the raped were in conflict. It doesn't matter if there was a history between them. It doesn't matter if she made the sammie wrong, if dinner was late, if she wore the wrong dress, if she insulted him, if he felt the relationship wasn't fair, if he thought she should provide him with more frequent sexual gratification, if he hit her, or if she hit him. Rape is evil and the only one responsible for committing an act of rape is the rapist.

I use this as example to try to clarify my meaning. We can absolutely talk about the context of the conflict. But we absolutely must not place responsibility for committing atrocities on anyone other than the one who commits the atrocity.

Decades of unresolved conflict, while real, do not inevitably lead to committing atrocities. I reject that utterly. And if you believe the Palestinians are incapable of not committing atrocities - they certainly can't be permitted to have a State.

 

[Coyote]

Gender-based sexual violence doesn't happen in a vacuum either. It occurs within the context of a complex stew of misogyny, historical expectations, religious beliefs, cultural norms, systemic oppression, and other societal ills.

It is also a very common weapon of war, unfortunately. One of the differences between a disciplined and professional military and militants is that looting, rape and abuse of civilians is not tolerated.

Despite this stew, the only one responsible for committing rape is the rapist. The rapist is not inevitably compelled to perform acts of evil, as though he has no responsibility, no accountability, and no choice except to commit the evil. The victim of rape is never complicit in causing her own harm.

Agree. But we are also about the acts of nations (or aspiring nations) not just individuals.

And we don't (or we shouldn't) assign "points" as to who was most at fault for the "oops! accident" of rape. It doesn't matter if the rapist and the raped were in conflict. It doesn't matter if there was a history between them. It doesn't matter if she made the sammie wrong, if dinner was late, if she wore the wrong dress, if she insulted him, if he felt the relationship wasn't fair, if he thought she should provide him with more frequent sexual gratification, if he hit her, or if she hit him. Rape is evil and the only one responsible for committing an act of rape is the rapist.

I agree.

I use this as example to try to clarify my meaning. We can absolutely talk about the context of the conflict. But we absolutely must not place responsibility for committing atrocities on anyone other than the one who commits the atrocity.

Here is my difficulty with HOW a discussion like should occur, and I’ll use an extremely overly simplified historical example to make a point.

As the US expanded it appropriated territory formerly held by various native populations. Those populations attacked the American pioneers, women were raped, taken captive, children were killed, people burned alive or tortured. It wasn’t one sided, as they expanded, they made and broke treaties, killed them, destroyed their villages, imprisoned or killed their leaders (and given the time period rape, pillaging etc was rampant). They put them into reservations, with none of rights enjoyed by American citizenry and expected acquiescence but there were multiple bloody uprisings.

Rape, torture, murder, and the taking of captives were common tactics used by the natives. And entire villages or tribes were punished as a result.

Who is responsible for the rapes and murders? They are the ones who did and the leaders that knowingly allowed, encouraged and planned it.

But you can’t ignore the larger context of what was happening before it or around it because doing so means it just keeps happening unless you actively take measures for a resolution or you de facto exterminate them either culturally or physically.

So how do you discuss that, when discussion of the political side of the conflict seems to be suppressed as victim blaming? You can’t have a solutions, at least not within today’s ethics, without that discussion.

Decades of unresolved conflict, while real, do not inevitably lead to committing atrocities. I reject that utterly. And if you believe the Palestinians are incapable of not committing atrocities - they certainly can't be permitted to have a State.

I agree.

 

[Shusha]

So how do you discuss that, when discussion of the political side of the conflict seems to be suppressed as victim blaming? You can’t have a solutions, at least not within today’s ethics, without that discussion.

I see a very very clear distinction between the politics/conflict and the commission of atrocities.

 

[Shusha]

Coyote

If you can discuss the atrocity of October 7 in the context of Hamas and Gaza Palestinian responsibility and accountability and choice then you won't be victim-blaming. I've yet to see you do it.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote

If you can discuss the atrocity of October 7 in the context of Hamas and Gaza Palestinian responsibility and accountability and choice then you won't be victim-blaming. I've yet to see you do it.

So you only want to discuss one of half the problem, and not just Hamas but lay responsibility and accountability on the feet of all the Palestinians, not just those who committed it?

 

[Shusha]

So you only want to discuss one of half the problem, and not just Hamas but lay responsibility and accountability on the feet of all the Palestinians, not just those who committed it?

Um, no. I am perfectly happy to discuss Israel's "half" of the problem. But the responsibility for the atrocity lays with Hamas and anyone who supported it. Israel didn't "cause" Hamas and the supporting Gaza Palestinians to rape, slaughter, hold hostage, torture Israelis.

 

[Coyote]

Um, no. I am perfectly happy to discuss Israel's "half" of the problem. But the responsibility for the atrocity lays with Hamas and anyone who supported it.

I have yet to hear Israel’s half of the problem discussed…at all.

 

[Shusha]

I have yet to hear Israel’s half of the problem discussed…at all.

It's me you are talking to. We've been doing this for nearly a decade. This seems disingenuous.

What remains undiscussed from the Israeli half?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

How to get Hamas to stop mass murdering Jews?

 

[Coyote]

It's me you are talking to. We've been doing this for nearly a decade. This seems disingenuous.

What remains undiscussed from the Israeli half?

Political policies designed to ensure there would be no two-state solution? Isolating Gaza and supporting Hamas in Gaza in order weaken Abbas and prevent a stronger, more unified movement to establish a state?

What has been the cost here? Has the policy worked? Was it worth the price? You can’t say it has no bearing on what happened.

I would not expect Israeli’s to feel anything for the Palestinians at this point, given the enormity of what Hamas did. Nor would I expect the Palestinians to feel anything for the Israelis given the enormity of what they are doing to Gaza. But it is noteworthy how little real information about each other filters through to the other side.

An often repeated poll of Palestinians indicated a majority supported Hamas in December. This has been much hyped and spun as indicating specific support of Hamas’ horrific actions. Yet the same poll also showed the majority did not believe Hamas actually committed those atrocities and, more shocking, they believed the Israeli’s committed those kind of atrocities. That part of the poll is ignored.

Isolation strengthened Hamas’ hold on Gaza. It allowed Hamas to control the flow of information and with Qatar, ensured a well funded Hamas with a stranglehold on Gaza. Hamas was not popular.

All this to weaken any possibility of a two state solution.

 

[rylah]

The Middle East is a bleeding sore that will continue bleeding. It is the only sure thing you can count on. Nobody's hands are clean.
You want a defense of Israel..without a critique of Israel. Not going to happen. They do own some responsibility for their current position.
Perhaps if they had enforced the laws and treaties they had signed? Perhaps if they had disallowed the illegal West Bank settlements? Perhaps if they had respected a right of return for the Palestinian refugees?
They wish a Jewish state..yet stand foursquare against a Palestinian one.
However..this is all water under the bridge now--Just as those who rule HAMAS wanted--You know, Iran? This entire situation is win/win for them thus far.
As the call to Jihad gets louder.
The Fundie Christians all nodding their heads
It is the Accelerationist's best bet~

And what is the common denominator in all the Middle East conflicts?

I don't want defense of Israel without critique - I want total victory,
for generations to remember, and the world to tremble of mere
thought of ever touching a Jew.

And the "genocide" hashtag which started
before the retaliation - serves that goal.

However, all the "if's" in your post to shift the blame on Israel,
don't explain the reason for Islamist violence before
any Zionist ever shot a single bullet.

All goes back to question above.

 

[Shusha]

Political policies designed to ensure there would be no two-state solution? Isolating Gaza and supporting Hamas in Gaza in order weaken Abbas and prevent a stronger, more unified movement to establish a state?

What has been the cost here? Has the policy worked? Was it worth the price? You can’t say it has no bearing on what happened.

I would not expect Israeli’s to feel anything for the Palestinians at this point, given the enormity of what Hamas did. Nor would I expect the Palestinians to feel anything for the Israelis given the enormity of what they are doing to Gaza. But it is noteworthy how little real information about each other filters through to the other side.

An often repeated poll of Palestinians indicated a majority supported Hamas in December. This has been much hyped and spun as indicating specific support of Hamas’ horrific actions. Yet the same poll also showed the majority did not believe Hamas actually committed those atrocities and, more shocking, they believed the Israeli’s committed those kind of atrocities. That part of the poll is ignored.

Isolation strengthened Hamas’ hold on Gaza. It allowed Hamas to control the flow of information and with Qatar, ensured a well funded Hamas with a stranglehold on Gaza. Hamas was not popular.

All this to weaken any possibility of a two state solution.

This whole thing reads to me: if only Israel had done "better", Palestine would be a thriving, prosperous, independent, sovereign state. "If only" Israel had supported Abbas... "If only" Israel had unified Gaza and the "West Bank"... "If only" Israel had maintained its control over Gaza... "If only" Israel had ... ... ...

It doesn't work that way. It is not Israel's responsibility to create a Palestinian state (or two or three more).

Does Israel's actions have a bearing on the results? Of course. Were those actions insurmountable? Not even by the smallest bit. The choices made by the Palestinians had far more lasting detrimental effects on the Palestinians than anything Israel did.

 

[Lisa558]

Hard disagree. This is victim-blaming, pure and simple as it gets. There is NO justification for the horrors endured by the Israeli and Jewish people on October 7. There is NO justification for further attacks like this against Israel and the Jewish people by Gaza Palestinians, "West Bank" Palestinians, or by Hezbollah. There is nothing about this attack that can legitimize it, regardless of whatever "context" you want to put around it or the background for the conflict between these two peoples. Rape is not resistance. Torture is not resistance. Abducting children is not resistance. Burning Jews is not resistance.

Israel is not complicit in the crimes against humanity perpetrated on her people.

And the international community needs to stop using this language of mutual responsibility for terrorism (especially as this seems to be uniquely applied to Israel).



This, I agree with. And it is important to understand the difference between this agreement and my hard nope above.

Israel has an obligation to defend itself, its citizens, and its borders. The international community has an obligation to defend the sovereignty of every state, and the safety and security of all humanity against terrorism. The UN hasn't even condemned the atrocity committed against Israel (on Israeli sovereign territory, at least according to the UN).

And you know my position on borders. There is only one possible legal position to take. The only reason it appears to be contentious is because the international community has taken the position that law can be twisted, changed, dismantled when it comes to Israel. (Incidentally, I listened to Ralf Wilde's speech at the ICJ which outlined his version of Palestine's legal position, and quite frankly, it is almost comically flawed. So outrageous, I have a hard time taking it seriously.)

Wait, you aren't arguing that Israel is acting in unlimited, unrestricted ways are you? Because that seems more than a little silly. Every nation has a right (obligation) to defend itself within the parameters of the law. That is what Israel is at least attempting to do, from my point of view. And I know you disagree. And we can discuss that. But, let's not accuse Israel of "unlimited and unrestricted", that's just misinformation and demonization.

Wait, did Ukraine cross international boundaries into the territory of Russia (another State) and commit slaughter with intent to genocide the people of Russia? No, it didn't. You are trying to create an equivalency where there is none. The only reason I can see that you would do so, is to try to equate Israel with Russia as the "party in the wrong", at best.

We agree. I think we have a few points of disagreement on informational facts and assumptions. Such as: civilians are harmed in a strike on a particular building. My assumption is that there was a clear military target in that location. And your assumption is that Israel is intentionally targeting civilians.

I think we also disagree on where the "stop" point is on the continuum. I have a much higher tolerance for short-term harm now in the pursuit of a larger and more lasting net benefit for everyone. And we can discuss this further.

That's an interesting question. My first reaction was, "of course"! But I also weigh in other factors. What is the likelihood of achieving the goal? The higher that is, the more tolerant I am of the cost.

I'm not sure there is an easy answer to that. It's a multi-factor equation. Here are some of the factors I would consider:

• scale of the inciting incident
• the actors contributing to the incident
• the past practices of the actors
• the stated goals of the actors
• the resources of the actors
• the difficulties posed by the conditions
• the attainability of the military goal

I'm sure there is more. It's complicated. But I think Israel's stated goals (bring the hostages home, dismantle Hamas, destroy the war infrastructure, deradicalize Gaza) are moral goals.

Me neither. I haven't done that.

Hard no again. Israel is not complicit in the atrocity committed against her. That is all, entirely, without question, on Hamas and those who supported Hamas in committing it. And that is a wide, large net.

I see this as an interesting reversal of your position. You appear to support a reduction in harm and loss of life as the most important issue. Yet, when we can move people to a place of absolute safety and save lives, you retreat? I'm seeing this as hypocritical. Maybe you can clarify further.

The people of Gaza were self-governing, with full autonomy and a potential for sovereign independence. They HAD autonomy (else they would not have been able to do what they did). Gaza needs to take responsibility for itself, and needs to stop blaming everything on Israel. Put down your weapons. Choose water.

A big problem I see is that leftists, who have become decidedly anti-Israel in recent years, want to create a moral equivalence that just REEKS of antisemitism: they say that Israel is as bad as HAMAS.

In their Jew-hating fervor, they have compared Israeli to absolute barbarians who went on a hunt for every innocent Jewish man, woman, child, and baby to murder in the most excruciating ways. They sawed off the heads of children, stuck a baby in the oven and broiled it to death, tied toddlers to their parents and set them on fire. In other instances, they raped women while slashing off their breasts and tossing them in the air with laughter, or stripping a woman naked, and then sticking a gun in her vagina, and pulling the trigger.

And people are so full of hatred for Jews that they compare Israelis to savages that do THAT? Jews have taken steps to reduce the Palestinian civilian deaths - which is quite compassionate of them given that most Palestinians support HAMAS and want Jews dead.

And now, to make matters worse, Biden was just on the tube saying Netanyahu is making things worse. Why isn’t he saying that the HAMAS scum is making things worse by not releasing the hostages (of those who have thus far survived intentional abuse)?

Because everyone blames the Jews - including the Left who say that bigotry and racism is wrong.

 

[FDR_Reagan]

A big problem I see is that leftists, who have become decidedly anti-Israel in recent years, want to create a moral equivalence that just REEKS of antisemitism: they say that Israel is as bad as HAMAS.

In their Jew-hating fervor, they have compared Israeli to absolute barbarians who went on a hunt for every innocent Jewish man, woman, child, and baby to murder in the most excruciating ways. They sawed off the heads of children, stuck a baby in the oven and broiled it to death, tied toddlers to their parents and set them on fire. In other instances, they raped women while slashing off their breasts and tossing them in the air with laughter, or stripping a woman naked, and then sticking a gun in her vagina, and pulling the trigger.

And people are so full of hatred for Jews that they compare Israelis to savages that do THAT? Jews have taken steps to reduce the Palestinian civilian deaths - which is quite compassionate of them given that most Palestinians support HAMAS and want Jews dead.

And now, to make matters worse, Biden was just on the tube saying Netanyahu is making things worse. Why isn’t he saying that the HAMAS scum is making things worse by not releasing the hostages (of those who have thus far survived intentional abuse)?

Because everyone blames the Jews - including the Left who say that bigotry and racism is wrong.

Sen. Graham says Israel-Hamas war ‘will not be over’ if hostages are released: Full interview

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) exclusively joins Meet the Press following Joe Biden’s State of the Union address and discusses the president’s comments on the border and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Sen. Graham says Israel-Hamas war ‘will not be over’ if hostages are released: Full interview

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) exclusively joins Meet the Press following Joe Biden’s State of the Union address and discusses the president’s comments on the border and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

www.nbcnews.com

"when the president of the United States talks about Bibi and not Hamas, we're missing the boat here. When you talk about red lines against Israel, we should be talking about red lines against Iran. Israel's not killing American soldiers. Iran is, through their proxies. So, I would urge President Biden to hold the great Satan, Iran, accountable for killing soldiers in Jordan and attacking shipping. So, yeah, I think he's got it backwards. We should be all-in in helping Israel. We should try to help the humanitarian crisis. But don't say or do anything that would empower our enemy."