You brought it up, presumably as an example of something the Palestinians would not want to be inflicted on them; it’s being inflicted on them in the wake of the 10/7 attack. And so whatever specific argument you want to make — you know, about how horrifying it is for them — is probably the same argument I’d then repeat back to you about what Israel is signaling: that this is, per Banquet Bear, an example of precisely the sort of horrifying would-not-want response that one can expect to be inflicted following something like a 10/7 attack.
Well, look, I’m not the one who brought up the claim that “Gaza won’t ever be able to recover. (if it is allowed to continue to exist, which I doubt)” — because I’d been kind of reluctant to ratchet up to that level of, uh, reliability — but once I saw Banquet Bear put that out there, I figured, huh, maybe I should give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
…yes I did.
I’m confused as to what this has to do with my question.
Is your answer the Palestinian people deserve it?
Can you be a little bit less cryptic?
Just say what you mean.
It looks like your defence of murdering Palestinians in Gaza for going for a swim is “they had it coming.”
Is that what you mean?
Because that’s how I read it. But if that isn’t what you meant, can you provide clarity?
And what on earth is this supposed to mean?
That still sounds as though you’re saying that anything Israel is doing to ensure that Gaza will never recover, or even cease to exist altogether—up to and including banning Palestinians from swimming in the ocean, on pain of death—is in Israel’s “own best interests”.
If my own best interests depend on my committing to ongoing acts of war crime and genocide, I think I need to rethink what my best interests are.
The Palestinians didn’t commit the 10/7 attack. Inflicting a punishment on the Palestinians is no different than inflicting a punishment on American Jews in Brooklyn in response to something Israel did.
I don’t get how you’re not getting this. You wrote that Gaza won’t ever be able to recover, and you added a quick “if it is allowed to continue to exist, which I doubt”. I quoted you as saying that.
I noted that I hadn’t yet reached the conclusion that — as you said, right there, in the part I quoted — Gaza wouldn’t ever be able to recover, and might not be allowed to continue to exist. But, I added, having read what you wrote — the part that I quoted, right there — I figured that maybe I should give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to concluding that “Gaza won’t ever be able to recover” (as you said, and I quoted) and that it may not be “allowed to continue to exist” (as you said, and I quoted).
If your response to something that straightforward is a ‘what on earth is this supposed to mean,’ then I see little point in discussing anything else: you’re saying X, and I’m saying X back to you, and you’re — genuinely not understanding what on earth it means when someone says X back to you?
The 10/7 attack was inflicted on the . . . who?
…nope. Still not getting it. What I wrote again:
You are writing increasingly convoluted defences of the IDF banning Palestinians in Gaza from swimming in the ocean. Can you keep it simple? Are you defending this or not and if you are, can you explain why you defend it?
Israelis.
I’m sorry; I’ll try again.
You stated: “Gaza won’t ever be able to recover. (if it is allowed to continue to exist, which I doubt)”.
I hadn’t yet reached that conclusion. I saw you state that conclusion. I figured that I should give you the benefit of the doubt about that conclusion.
You flatly stated that conclusion. I’m blandly repeating it back to you.
I don’t know how much simpler I can make it: you seem to think it’s bad; you seem to think the Palestinians think it’s bad; you seem to think you’re not making convoluted claims; you seem to think you’re keeping things sufficiently simple.
And so I’m saying: however you fill in the blanks there — whatever you find bad about it, whatever they find bad about it, whatever you believe to be simple and unconvoluted — is, presumably, what I’d blandly repeat back to you in favor of it. That’s, like, the definition of simple and unconvoluted.
…I’m sorry, I’ll try again. This isn’t relevant to the first thing you quoted.
Let’s make this as simple as possible.
Yes or no answers only.
Do you defend the IDF’s actions of banning Palestinians in Gaza from swimming, and if they do decide to swim, risk getting killed?
Yes. Of course. I thought I’d made that clear.
Had I not made that clear?
…so part two of my question is: what is your defence? How do you justify what is clearly an act of displacement, a clear violation of International Humanitarian Law?
The difference seems to be that nobody here is defending the Hamas perpetrators of the 10/7 attack against Israelis.
You, on the other hand, seem to be advocating that anything Israelis perpetrate against Palestinians is not only fair game and defensible, but in Israel’s “own best interests”, as long as it’s presented as being in response to the 10/7 attack. Because, deterrence, or something.
I mean I don’t know how many times he can tell you. Feel free to fill in the blank:
This is something Palestinians don’t like: ________
He is in favor of it because the Palestinians don’t like it.
It’s that simple. Full in the blank with anything.
As I understand it, there isn’t actually any authority enforcing, uh, ‘international law’ thereabouts. Claims about ‘international law’ being relevant strike me as like unto a sovereign citizen insisting — even as they’re arrested and put behind bars by folks who continue on, uninterrupted — that said folks who continue on, uninterrupted, don’t have the right to do what they’re doing: as if there’s some higher-up law-enforcement type who, y’know, never in fact seems to show up to enforce some other law that isn’t in fact in effect.
I don’t believe there’s a legal question before us.
I believe there is a question about whether they’re succeeding in making it so that Gaza won’t ever be able to recover (which, you said, is the case) — if it is allowed to continue to exist (which, you said, you doubt). To the extent that you’re claiming that what Israel is doing is succeeding in that regard, then that’s my defense of it.
A poor analogy, because sovcits are the people violating (state, federal, etc.) laws that they are formally bound by, and trying to duck the consequences by invoking some imaginary higher authority.
The people pointing out that Israel’s actions violate international law, on the other hand, are the actual institutions responsible for making international law, such as the United Nations. To pretend that international law is just some ad hoc imaginary bullshit on a par with sovereign citizens’ completely made-up allegations about “immunity” is disingenuous.
I don’t see how. The sovcit seems to think that, upon citing something or other about law, people in power will admit that, oh, gosh, that’s correct, and the law he’s referring to will be enforced. Other folks seem to think that, upon citing something or other about international law, people in power will admit that oh, gosh, that’s correct, and the law being referred to will be enforced.
Near as I can tell, they’re both wrong.
…so part one of your defence is “International Law” doesn’t exist.
This is utter nonsense.
This isn’t at the level of “sovereign citizens.” It isn’t even close.
For the sake of clarity; you don’t want Gaza to recover?
Do you approve of the targeted killings of academics? The destruction of civilian infrastructure that are the pillars of any society like schools, universities, churches and mosques?
For the sake of clarity, do you not want Gaza to exist?
For the sake of clarity, your defence of banning Palestinians in Gaza from swimming is that you don’t want Gaza to recover, and that you don’t want Gaza to exist any more?
A yes or no will suffice.
Or else what?
Relaying that when law enforcement is involved — that’s interesting. Relaying it when nothing of the sort is set to happen — isn’t. It’s indistinguishable from a sovcit saying that something needs to be respected; the question isn’t whether that gets said, the question is or else what?
I’m indifferent. I believe that Israel should act in its best interests; if that involves Gaza never recovering, fine by me; if it involves Gaza recovering, also fine by me; destroying infrastructure, banning swimming, bringing about non existence — make the case that it’s in Israel’s best interests and I’m all ears; make the case that it isn’t, and I’m all ears. I’d likewise recommend to those thinking of attacking Israel to consider what the response would be, and to decide whether it’s in their best interests to do so or to refrain.