It seems to be highly effective for them, yes. There’s a pretty strong argument that we should have done the same thing with the Oct 7 footage. I don’t personally agree with that, but it’s hard to argue against.
Did it work on you was my question.
No, but it’s not intended for me, is it? It’s intended for college kids half a world away who don’t know which “river” or which “sea” are being discussed. And it’s working great on them.
You’re really not going to answer this question, are you?
Never mind, then.
I’m seriously asking. Am I allowed to say per forum rules that you’re dodging the question? Because you’re dodging the question.
I can’t get a cite because it just played a moment ago on All Things Consodered, and it usually takes a couple hours for NPR to post its stories online, but they just ran a story about the Israeli government backing “clans” (their word) opposed to Hamas, to the point of providing military support to them.
Hamas, of course, is calling them “Zionist collaborators “ and going after them.
Why is it that I can totally imagine Netanyahu getting a chubby over a Gaza civil war, which would of course be a tragedy that requires Israeli military assistance
I thought I did answer it.
Yes, I’ve seen that sort of footage. No, it doesn’t change my mind about the conflict - I was under no illusion about the sort of carnage an urban war against Hamas would entail, so it doesn’t change my mind; but if I was confused about that, then being made aware of the truth would be a good thing.
In general, I think that if you’re supportive of a war but you get too precious over what footage of that war looks like, that’s probably a problem. You should be aware of the cost of the things you support.
And you think those celebrities are in favor of the war… Because they attempted to smuggle food to hungry civilians?
I mean, it looks like a stupid publicity stunt to me. But it looks like a humanitarian publicity stunt, not a “let’s go kill people” publicity stunt.
Doesn’t that already make it better than the GHF?
…but there isn’t any cost to you.
Naw, GHF might be a legitimate attempt to provide aid, and at worst, is also a humanitarian pubicity stunt. The fact that publicity stunts in war zone sometimes get people killed notwithstanding.
It feels like the IDF might be less likely to shoot random Palestinians when MSF, the UN, or Greta Thunberg are delivering aid than they seem to be when the GHF is the only game in town.
…the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and Israel said in a report today:
In a case of where every accusation is a confession:
More at the link, including details about the West Bank and Palestinians in Israel. The full report is here:
Moderating:
This is getting personal. This is the MPSIMS thread, not the pit thread. Stick to the topic, don’t attack other posters.
Working in the sort of places MSF does also requires not pissing off heavily armed, angry people. Sometimes, in order to get help to people in need, you have to deal with unsavory people.
As an example - during the 1990’s famine in North Korea the US sent food aid to North Korea. Despite the fact both the US and North Korea are still at was with each other (it’s been a very long cease-fire, but no actual end to the conflict). Despite the fact that North Korea made it very clear they would feed the army first. Yet the US sent sufficient aid that some of it was able to get to the civilians. Either though that meant feeding an enemy army. The ruling Kim told his people it was “tribute” that the US paid out of fear of North Korea so in addition to food the Big Bad Guy got bragging rights, too.
Did that donation mean working with unsavory people? Yes. Does it mean some bad guys got to eat? Yes. Did it save ordinary people not involved in the conflict from starving? Yes.
Israel and the IDF is demanding a level of moral purity that does not exist in the real world. They would rather every single person in Gaza starve or die of thirst than even one act of corruption occur. So they will forever cut off aid, and people will die. And apparently you see nothing wrong with that?
Very nice. Israel is also a nation whose military left babies to die in incubators in a hospital they took over, too (discovered first week of December 2023 in the ruin of al-Nasr hospital, reported by multiple reputable news sources). Are there questions about that incident? Sure - that’s what happens when you don’t allow independent journalism and/or independent verification. You complain when it’s “just the word of Hamas”, but don’t see the hypocrisy in condemning people who question the narrative when it’s “just the word of the IDF”. Without independent verification neither side in a conflict can be taken at their own word.
Unless you personally know Greta you actually don’t know what she has been “exposed” to, you’re just guessing. And making assumptions.
This is something you do over and over - insisting that people who come to a different conclusion than you do are either ignorant or hostile, rather than coming to a difficult conclusion when looking at the same information.
Like it or not, until the IDF charged in post-10/7 Hamas was the government in Gaza. If someone from outside wants to do something in Israel they have to deal with the Israeli government, yes? Just because Israel is at war doesn’t mean their government ceases to be, right?
It’s your usual double-standard. Even though Hamas was the government in Gaza outside agencies dealing with the Gaza government are automatically bad guys. Even though that’s actually the way things are done throughout the world and throughout history. You don’t have to like Hamas, or agree with them, you are free to despise them and wish them gone… but regardless, they WERE the government of Gaza, even if evil and corrupt.
Personally, I do think Hamas are scum and deserve to be removed from power. That doesn’t erase the fact that before this war they were the government in Gaza and foreign entities had to deal with them, just like foreign entities in Israel have to deal with the Israeli government.
Oh, that’s easy - it’s men making the decisions.
Well… OK, let’s not debate that and let it stand. I’ll just note that there were allegations of wrong-doing in US troops during that war that were investigated and guilty parties were imprisoned, along with apologies from the US to the Iraqis. In other words, the US was capable of admitting they had some bad apples who did wrong (even if grudgingly)
Contrast this with the IDF whose “investigations” NEVER find wrong-doing in their own troops. It’s improbable that the IDF is morally perfect, what with being composed of human beings. That’s the sort of thing that makes people not trust the IDF, that no matter what their guys are always, always, always innocent victims. It’s not plausible.
Then why do you think showing Greta footage from 10/7 is going to change her mind? She wasn’t going there to help Hamas, she was going there to help civilian people who were starving and dying of thirst. Or do you think all Gazans are Hamas and equally culpable, all are Hamas warriors even the toddlers, old men, and women?
Do you think the US and Britain shouldn’t have had the Berlin airlift because a few years earlier all those Germans where on the other side in a brutal war? Do you think the US shouldn’t have offered to send food to starving North Koreans? Do you think the US should have just let survivors of the atomic bombs die miserably rather than sending in their own medical people to attempt to help them?
The US can be a pretty shitty place at times, and we’re not always nice and we don’t always have the moral high ground, but thank God we have such short memories we can help people caught in the crossfire of war instead of engaging in blood feuds for centuries.
And this is why all the reveals about, “he was actually part of Hamas!” Or worse, “his brother was part of Hamas!” leave me underwhelmed with the need to kill those people. The guys who removed the garbage and carried the mail were “part of Hamas”. Hamas has done lots of horrible things, (and continues to plot horrible things) but parts of Hamas did completely mundane stuff, too.
You’d think we’d have that figured out by now, after our experiences with de-Nazification and de-Baathification, neither of which went very well.
Obviously one doesn’t keep the Adolfs and Sadams, but one needn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater either.
Denazification of Germany worked pretty well after WW2.
As I understand it, and I’m open to being shown wrong, when it started getting to the level of the Post Office, they had to back off in order to have a functioning system.
That is, there was an initial zeal to go after everyone who was ever a member of the party and then realized that didn’t work.
So I’ve read.
What I mean is that, unlike (for example) Reconstruction after the Civil War, there is very little remaining Nazi popularity in Germany. The Nazi party was defeated and their successors are very weak with little influence in Germany. Unfortunately for the US, the Confederate philosophy, and its successors, are in charge of the US government today.
Ah, got it.
My point was just to agree with @puzzlegal that in a system like that, you may have no choice but to be part of Hamas, even if you hate everything about them.
Finding the quote is being elusive, but during the post-war occupation one of the US generals got in trouble for commenting that some of the bureaucrats being Nazis is no different than the fact that the US Postmaster General will be a Republican under a Republican president. Something to that effect, and of course he’s not wrong, but they had recreational outrage even back then.