Israeli-Hamas war

[Asmodean]

Israel consists of only a small piece of land, where the Jews have been living for many centuries. Why don't their Arab neighbors give the Palestinians a place to live? Makes far more sense, because they are much, much larger than Israel and sparsely populated.

Divine Right(tm), the very concept of giving away what's yours to a stranger, politics...

There are many reasons why someone would not invite someone else to share what's theirs - some are better than others, but that is a matter of perspective.

[The Magic Pudding..]

Israel consists of only a small piece of land, where the Jews have been living for many centuries. Why don't their Arab neighbors give the Palestinians a place to live? Makes far more sense, because they are much, much larger than Israel and sparsely populated.

Dunno
Why do Moslems in need of refuge so often seek it in evil infidel countries?

[Asmodean]

Free money, scantly-clad women, whole city districts understand your language, you get to bring your ways right over and if you so choose attempt to make that hive of infidelity into precisely the kind of dump you originally escaped from...

...What's not to like?

To be a bit more generous though, I think the simple truth is that people who do migrate try to move to wherever suitable opportunities to the kind of life they want lie - even when running from war, oppression or whatever have you.

[Icarus]

Here is an easy to watch cartoon history of the Palestine vs Israel contest. Without direct knowledge of the history there, It may seem that the artist/commentator is a tad biased toward the Israelis. If what he is telling us, is the straight up true history, then I will need to re-adjust my attitude toward the current madness.

[Asmodean]

It's not bad. Truncated and somewhat selective, but then it had to be to squeeze decades upon decades of data into eleven and a half minutes and it does touch upon many events that often get omitted in modern discourse.

[billy rubin]

hamas is recognized all over the west as a terririst organization.

what do organizations do that identifies them as terrorists?

[Asmodean]

A terrorist organisation is a non-state entity which conducts attacks specifically aimed at civilian targets.

It's not quite that simple, though a fair enough first degree approximation.

[billy rubin]

so a state can perform the same actions against civilians as a non-state entity, but it will not be a terrorist act.

[Tank]

so a state can perform the same actions as a terrorist entity, but it will be not a terrorist organization.

If a state of war exists between two states then neither is considered a 'terrorist' organisation. However there are nominal rules of war and should a state break those rules they could be considered a terrorist organisation. The dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan and the Allied attacks on Hamburg did little to impact directly on the war fighting capability of Japan or Germany. In that sense they could be considered primarily to 'terrorise' the leaders of those countries. So they are in a grey area. NATO, and America if operating independently, do attempt to reduce collateral civilian deaths if only for the negative PR aspects they bring. I think the Israeli response to Hamas is problematical, until I heard a rant by a member of Hamas on the BBC this morning. You'd think Hamas had done nothing at all. Frankly they are both high on hate and thus oblivious to any niceties associated to war.

[billy rubin]

here is a definition from oxford academic

Terrorism is the premeditated use or threat to use violence by individuals or subnational groups to obtain a political or social objective through the intimidation of a large audience beyond that of the immediate noncombatant victims (Enders and Sandler, 2012, p.4). The two essential ingredients of terrorism are its violence and its political or social motive.

this definition also excludes state actors from being able to commit terrorist acts.

yet the difference is merely semantic. if the united states drops nerve gas on a hospital to intimidate a non-state political rival, then the act is not terrorism, by definition. if a member of the non-state faction performs the identical act, then by definition it has become an act of terrorism.

it appears to me that the use of "terrorism" or "terrorist" to describe acts against civilians is transparent to the civilians. in one case, they are gassed by a state in an act of justifiable warfare. in the other, they are gassed by a non-state in an illegitimate act if terror.

[Icarus]

^ Labels will not matter much to the victims who were killed.

[Asmodean]

so a state can perform the same actions against civilians as a non-state entity, but it will not be a terrorist act.

Indeed. It would be an act of war.

If there is no sufficient military justification for it, potentially even a war crime.

I think a state actor can act as a terrorist organisation, but in such cases, it's common to just escalate it to the status of war. You need not look further back than Russian invasion of Ukraine for an example. Russia insisted that it was not a war, so one could view it as an act of terror as it ticks all them boxes aside from it being a state entity behind it, but we have a better descriptor for what is actually happening, and so we use it; War.

[The Magic Pudding..]

so a state can perform the same actions against civilians as a non-state entity, but it will not be a terrorist act.

Indeed. It would be an act of war.

Unless they own the civilians.

I wonder if Billy not doing popular culture (tv, movies) means he misses much of the discussion.  Call them a terrorist/heretic and no discussion necessary, just kill them.

In Juan of the Dead the government used term dissident.

[billy rubin]

i follow mostly print  i havent seen any videos of any of this from any part of the story.

its clear to me that neither party merits moral authority in this conflict. hamas acted with cruelty and violence towards innocent civilians, killing around 1400.

israel has responded with acts of cruelty and violence towards innocent civilians, killing around 8000 by now.

neither party has a moral right to continue, at this point. both sides are terrorists, performing acts of terroism. if that word has any meaning. i dont think it has.

so what next? israel can exterminate the palestinians, some 2 million in gaza, 5 million in their occupied homeland, dunno how many in jordan, egypt, syria and lebanon. i have listened ti interviews with israelis who want that. or drive them all out.

israel can reverse course and allow the palestinians to re-occupy their homeland, which it is currently annexing. that will be very difficult to do.

israel can return to the status quo of palestinian apartheid, and history will repeat itself, again.

one thing for sure, though. israel will grind its boot into the necks of its captive palestinian residents even harder from now on. the israelis are very good at oppression, less so at coexistence. that alone indicates to me that things will be getting worse all around as the predictable responses will be made.

[billy rubin]

.

what the hell was that?